Ruilin Luo

Zicheng Lin, Tian Liang, Jiahao Xu et al.

Mathematical reasoning tasks pose significant challenges for large language models (LLMs) because they require precise logical deduction and sequence analysis. In this work, we introduce the concept of critical tokens -- elements within reasoning trajectories that significantly influence incorrect outcomes. We present a novel framework for identifying these tokens through rollout sampling and demonstrate their substantial divergence from traditional error tokens. Through extensive experiments on datasets such as GSM8K and MATH500, we show that identifying and replacing critical tokens significantly improves model accuracy. We propose an efficient methodology for pinpointing these tokens in large-scale datasets using contrastive estimation and extend this framework to enhance model training processes with direct preference optimization (DPO). Experimental results on GSM8K and MATH500 benchmarks with the widely used models Llama-3 (8B and 70B) and Deepseek-math (7B) demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, cDPO. Our results underscore the potential of leveraging critical tokens to reduce errors in reasoning tasks, advancing the development of AI systems capable of robust logical deduction. Our code, annotated datasets, and trained models are available at https://github.com/chenzhiling9954/Critical-Tokens-Matter to support and encourage future research in this promising field.

Zicheng Lin, Zhibin Gou, Tian Liang et al. · tsinghua

The ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to critique and refine their reasoning is crucial for their application in evaluation, feedback provision, and self-improvement. This paper introduces CriticBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to assess LLMs' abilities to critique and rectify their reasoning across a variety of tasks. CriticBench encompasses five reasoning domains: mathematical, commonsense, symbolic, coding, and algorithmic. It compiles 15 datasets and incorporates responses from three LLM families. Utilizing CriticBench, we evaluate and dissect the performance of 17 LLMs in generation, critique, and correction reasoning, i.e., GQC reasoning. Our findings reveal: (1) a linear relationship in GQC capabilities, with critique-focused training markedly enhancing performance; (2) a task-dependent variation in correction effectiveness, with logic-oriented tasks being more amenable to correction; (3) GQC knowledge inconsistencies that decrease as model size increases; and (4) an intriguing inter-model critiquing dynamic, where stronger models are better at critiquing weaker ones, while weaker models can surprisingly surpass stronger ones in their self-critique. We hope these insights into the nuanced critique-correct reasoning of LLMs will foster further research in LLM critique and self-improvement.