Arian Hosseini

Alessandro Sordoni, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Côté et al. · microsoft-research

Large language models (LLMs) can be seen as atomic units of computation mapping sequences to a distribution over sequences. Thus, they can be seen as stochastic language layers in a language network, where the learnable parameters are the natural language prompts at each layer. By stacking two such layers and feeding the output of one layer to the next, we obtain a Deep Language Network (DLN). We first show how to effectively perform prompt optimization for a 1-Layer language network (DLN-1). Then, we present an extension that applies to 2-layer DLNs (DLN-2), where two prompts must be learned. The key idea is to consider the output of the first layer as a latent variable, which requires inference, and prompts to be learned as the parameters of the generative distribution. We first test the effectiveness of DLN-1 in multiple reasoning and natural language understanding tasks. Then, we show that DLN-2 can reach higher performance than a single layer, showing promise that we might reach comparable performance to GPT-4, even when each LLM in the network is smaller and less powerful.

Arian Hosseini, Ankit Vani, Dzmitry Bahdanau et al. · mila

Pretrained large generative language models have shown great performance on many tasks, but exhibit low compositional generalization abilities. Scaling such models has been shown to improve their performance on various NLP tasks even just by conditioning them on a few examples to solve the task without any fine-tuning (also known as in-context learning). In this work, we look at the gap between the in-distribution (ID) and out-of-distribution (OOD) performance of such models in semantic parsing tasks with in-context learning. In the ID settings, the demonstrations are from the same split (test or train) that the model is being evaluated on, and in the OOD settings, they are from the other split. We look at how the relative generalization gap of in-context learning evolves as models are scaled up. We evaluate four model families, OPT, BLOOM, CodeGen and Codex on three semantic parsing datasets, CFQ, SCAN and GeoQuery with different number of exemplars, and observe a trend of decreasing relative generalization gap as models are scaled up.

Lunjun Zhang, Arian Hosseini, Hritik Bansal et al.

Verifiers or reward models are often used to enhance the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs). A common approach is the Best-of-N method, where N candidate solutions generated by the LLM are ranked by a verifier, and the best one is selected. While LLM-based verifiers are typically trained as discriminative classifiers to score solutions, they do not utilize the text generation capabilities of pretrained LLMs. To overcome this limitation, we instead propose training verifiers using the ubiquitous next-token prediction objective, jointly on verification and solution generation. Compared to standard verifiers, such generative verifiers (GenRM) can benefit from several advantages of LLMs: they integrate seamlessly with instruction tuning, enable chain-of-thought reasoning, and can utilize additional test-time compute via majority voting for better verification. We demonstrate that GenRM outperforms discriminative, DPO verifiers, and LLM-as-a-Judge, resulting in large performance gains with Best-of-N, namely 5% $\rightarrow$ 45.3% on algorithmic tasks and 73% $\rightarrow$ 93.4% on GSM8K. In easy-to-hard generalization settings, we observe improvements of 28% $\rightarrow$ 44.6% on MATH, and 37.9% $\rightarrow$ 53.5% on MMLU abstract algebra. Furthermore, we find that training GenRM with synthetic verification rationales is sufficient to pick out subtle errors on math problems. Finally, we demonstrate that GenRM scales favorably with model size and test-time compute.

Hritik Bansal, Arian Hosseini, Rishabh Agarwal et al.

Training on high-quality synthetic data from strong language models (LMs) is a common strategy to improve the reasoning performance of LMs. In this work, we revisit whether this strategy is compute-optimal under a fixed inference budget (e.g., FLOPs). To do so, we investigate the trade-offs between generating synthetic data using a stronger but more expensive (SE) model versus a weaker but cheaper (WC) model. We evaluate the generated data across three key metrics: coverage, diversity, and false positive rate, and show that the data from WC models may have higher coverage and diversity, but also exhibit higher false positive rates. We then finetune LMs on data from SE and WC models in different settings: knowledge distillation, self-improvement, and a novel weak-to-strong improvement setup where a weaker LM teaches reasoning to a stronger LM. Our findings reveal that models finetuned on WC-generated data consistently outperform those trained on SE-generated data across multiple benchmarks and multiple choices of WC and SE models. These results challenge the prevailing practice of relying on SE models for synthetic data generation, suggesting that WC may be the compute-optimal approach for training advanced LM reasoners.

Nishad Singhi, Hritik Bansal, Arian Hosseini et al.

Scaling test-time compute has emerged as a key strategy for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), particularly in tasks like mathematical problem-solving. A traditional approach, Self-Consistency (SC), generates multiple solutions to a problem and selects the most common answer via majority voting. Another common method involves scoring each solution with a reward model (verifier) and choosing the best one. Recent advancements in Generative Reward Models (GenRM) reframe verification as a next-token prediction task, enabling inference-time scaling along a new axis. Specifically, GenRM generates multiple verification chains-of-thought to score each solution. Under a limited inference budget, this introduces a fundamental trade-off: should you spend the budget on scaling solutions via SC or generate fewer solutions and allocate compute to verification via GenRM? To address this, we evaluate GenRM against SC under a fixed inference budget. Interestingly, we find that SC is more compute-efficient than GenRM for most practical inference budgets across diverse models and datasets. For instance, GenRM first matches SC after consuming up to 8x the inference compute and requires significantly more compute to outperform it. Furthermore, we derive inference scaling laws for the GenRM paradigm, revealing that compute-optimal inference favors scaling solution generation more aggressively than scaling the number of verifications. Our work provides practical guidance on optimizing test-time scaling by balancing solution generation and verification. The code is available at https://github.com/nishadsinghi/sc-genrm-scaling.

Arian Hosseini, Xingdi Yuan, Nikolay Malkin et al. · deepmind

Common self-improvement approaches for large language models (LLMs), such as STaR, iteratively fine-tune LLMs on self-generated solutions to improve their problem-solving ability. However, these approaches discard the large amounts of incorrect solutions generated during this process, potentially neglecting valuable information in such solutions. To address this shortcoming, we propose V-STaR that utilizes both the correct and incorrect solutions generated during the self-improvement process to train a verifier using DPO that judges correctness of model-generated solutions. This verifier is used at inference time to select one solution among many candidate solutions. Running V-STaR for multiple iterations results in progressively better reasoners and verifiers, delivering a 4% to 17% test accuracy improvement over existing self-improvement and verification approaches on common code generation and math reasoning benchmarks with LLaMA2 models.

Kusha Sareen, Morgane M Moss, Alessandro Sordoni et al.

Prevalent reinforcement learning~(RL) methods for fine-tuning LLM reasoners, such as GRPO or Leave-one-out PPO, abandon the learned value function in favor of empirically estimated returns. This hinders test-time compute scaling that relies on using the value-function for verification. In this work, we propose RL$^V$ that augments any ``value-free'' RL method by jointly training the LLM as both a reasoner and a generative verifier using RL-generated data, adding verification capabilities without significant overhead. Empirically, RL$^V$ boosts MATH accuracy by over 20\% with parallel sampling and enables $8-32\times$ efficient test-time compute scaling compared to the base RL method. RL$^V$ also exhibits strong generalization capabilities for both easy-to-hard and out-of-domain tasks. Furthermore, RL$^V$ achieves $1.2-1.6\times$ higher performance when jointly scaling parallel and sequential test-time compute with a long reasoning R1 model.

Arian Hosseini, Siva Reddy, Dzmitry Bahdanau et al.

Negation is a core construction in natural language. Despite being very successful on many tasks, state-of-the-art pre-trained language models often handle negation incorrectly. To improve language models in this regard, we propose to augment the language modeling objective with an unlikelihood objective that is based on negated generic sentences from a raw text corpus. By training BERT with the resulting combined objective we reduce the mean top~1 error rate to 4% on the negated LAMA dataset. We also see some improvements on the negated NLI benchmarks.