The DOI matches its DataCite record.
Easy-to-Hard Generalization: Scalable Alignment Beyond Human Supervision
Open accessAbstract
Current AI alignment methodologies rely on human-provided demonstrations or judgments, and the learned capabilities of AI systems would be upper-bounded by human capabilities as a result. This raises a challenging research question: How can we keep improving the systems when their capabilities have surpassed the levels of humans? This paper answers this question in the context of tackling hard reasoning tasks (e.g., level 4-5 MATH problems) via learning from human annotations on easier tasks (e.g., level 1-3 MATH problems), which we term as easy-to-hard generalization. Our key insight is that an evaluator (reward model) trained on supervisions for easier tasks can be effectively used for scoring candidate solutions of harder tasks and hence facilitating easy-to-hard generalization over different levels of tasks. Based on this insight, we propose a novel approach to scalable alignment, which firstly trains the (process-supervised) reward models on easy problems (e.g., level 1-3), and then uses them to evaluate the performance of policy models on hard problems. We show that such easy-to-hard generalization from evaluators can enable easy-to-hard generalizations in generators either through re-ranking or reinforcement learning (RL). Notably, our process-supervised 7b RL model and 34b model (reranking@1024) achieves an accuracy of 34.0% and 52.5% on MATH500, respectively, despite only using human supervision on easy problems. Our approach suggests a promising path toward AI systems that advance beyond the frontier of human supervision.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Calling language models repeatedly and taking a majority vote can lead to non-trivial increases in accuracy across benchmarks like GSM-8K, MATH, Chess, and MMLU.
“Calling language models repeatedly and taking a majority vote can lead to non-trivial increases in accuracy across benchmarks like GSM-8K, MATH, Chess, and MMLU [26, 6, 48].”
From AI Agents That Matter (2024) · cites this paper as [48]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kapoor, S., Stroebl, B., Siegel, Z. S., Nadgir, N., & Narayanan, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.01502 · Cited by 13
“Calling language models repeatedly and taking a majority vote can lead to non-trivial increases in accuracy across benchmarks like GSM-8K, MATH, Chess, and MMLU [26, 6, 48].”
MAgICoRe: Multi-Agent, Iterative, Coarse-to-Fine Refinement for Reasoning
Chen, J., Prasad, A., Saha, S., Stengel-Eskin, E., & Bansal, M. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1660 · Cited by 38
Deshpande, D., Gangal, V., Mehta, H., Kannappan, A., Qian, R., & Wang, P. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.01353
“Reinforcement Environments for LLM Agents The recent shift towards better alignment techniques [56] has resulted in better generalization for different tasks[57].”
Ishida, T. (2024) · Denshi Jouhou Tsuushin Gakkai Tsuushin Sosaieti magajin/B-plus/Denshi Jouhou Tsuushin Gakkai Tsuushin Sosaeti magajin · doi:10.1587/bplus.18.232
LLMs Can Overcome Lack of Embodied Context Through Explicit Prompting
Lakkananithiphan, P., Sritriratanarak, W., & Garcia, P. (2025) · International Conference on Computing and Artificial Intelligence (ICCAI) · doi:10.1109/iccai66501.2025.00061
A Flexible Multi-Agent LLM-Human Framework for Fast Human Validated Tool Building
Daull, X., Bellot, P., Bruno, E., Martin, V., & Murisasco, E. (2025) · 2025 IEEE/WIC International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT) · doi:10.1109/wi-iat67162.2025.00058
Metadata
- Authors
- Sun, Z., Yu, L., Shen, Y., Liu, W., Yang, Y., Welleck, S., & Gan, C.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 51118-51168
- ISSN
- 1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2403.09472
- OpenAlex
- W4415797700
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.87
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2134012)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- human oversight, large language models
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review