PreprintCited by 6Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Easy-to-Hard Generalization: Scalable Alignment Beyond Human Supervision

Open access

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2403.09472

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

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)
OpenAlex
W4415797700
Cited by
3
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.87
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
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