OpenMathInstruct-2: Accelerating AI for Math with Massive Open-Source Instruction Data
Open accessAbstract
Mathematical reasoning continues to be a critical challenge in large language model (LLM) development with significant interest. However, most of the cutting-edge progress in mathematical reasoning with LLMs has become \emph{closed-source} due to lack of access to training data. This lack of data access limits researchers from understanding the impact of different choices for synthesizing and utilizing the data. With the goal of creating a high-quality finetuning (SFT) dataset for math reasoning, we conduct careful ablation experiments on data synthesis using the recently released \texttt{Llama3.1} family of models. Our experiments show that: (a) solution format matters, with excessively verbose solutions proving detrimental to SFT performance, (b) data generated by a strong teacher outperforms equally-sized data generated by a weak student model, (c) SFT is robust to low-quality solutions, allowing for imprecise data filtering, and (d) question diversity is crucial for achieving data scaling gains. Based on these insights, we create the OpenMathInstruct-2 dataset, which consists of 14M question-solution pairs ($\approx$ 600K unique questions), making it nearly eight times larger than the previous largest open-source math reasoning dataset. Finetuning the \texttt{Llama-3.1-8B-Base} using OpenMathInstruct-2 outperforms \texttt{Llama3.1-8B-Instruct} on MATH by an absolute 15.9\% (51.9\% $\rightarrow$ 67.8\%). Finally, to accelerate the open-source efforts, we release the code, the finetuned models, and the OpenMathInstruct-2 dataset under a commercially permissive license.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
For math, LLM-generated questions in openmath-2-math and human-written questions in NuminaMath score highest, achieving 58.8 and 58.5 on average across math benchmarks.
“For math, both LLM-generated questions in openmath-2-math (Toshniwal et al., 2024) and human-written questions in NuminaMath (LI et al., 2024) score the highest, achieving 58.8 and 58.5 on average across math benchmarks.”
From OpenThoughts: Data Recipes for Reasoning Models (2025) · cites this paper as Toshniwal et al., 2024
The Introduction (page unavailable) says OpenMathInstruct-2 includes LLM-synthesized questions. The Final Results and Table 4 (pages unavailable) report strong benchmark performance for a model trained on it, but do not report a 58.8 average or establish that it scored highest across math benchmarks. The NuminaMath figure is attached to a different citation in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Rachith Aiyappa, Jisun An, Haewoon Kwak, and Yong-yeol Ahn. Can we trust the evaluation on ChatGPT? In 3rd Workshop on Trustworthy Natural Language Processing (TrustNLP 2023), 2023.
- Zhangir Azerbayev, Hailey Schoelkopf, Keiran Paster, Marco Dos Santos, Stephen Marcus McAleer, Albert Q. Jiang, Jia Deng, Stella Bi- derman, and Sean Welleck. Llemma: An Open Language Model for Mathematics. In ICLR, 2024.
- Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W. Cohen. Program of Thoughts Prompting: Disentangling Computation from Reasoning for Numerical Reasoning Tasks. TMLR, 2023.
- Karl Cobbe, Vineet Kosaraju, Mohammad Bavar- ian, Mark Chen, Heewoo Jun, Lukasz Kaiser, Matthias Plappert, Jerry Tworek, Jacob Hilton, Reiichiro Nakano, Christopher Hesse, and John Schulman. Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.14168, 2021. · arXiv
- Zhibin Gou, Zhihong Shao, Yeyun Gong, Yelong Shen, Yujiu Yang, Minlie Huang, Nan Duan, and Weizhu Chen. ToRA: A Tool-Integrated Reason- ing Agent for Mathematical Problem Solving. In ICLR, 2024.
- Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kada- vath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset. In NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks, 2021.
- Ari Holtzman, Jan Buys, Li Du, Maxwell Forbes, and Yejin Choi. The Curious Case of Neural Text Degeneration. In ICLR, 2020.
- Naman Jain, Tianjun Zhang, Wei-Lin Chiang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Koushik Sen, and Ion Sto- ica. LLM-Assisted Code Cleaning For Training Accurate Code Generators. In ICLR, 2024.
- Chen Li, Weiqi Wang, Jingcheng Hu, Yixuan Wei, Nanning Zheng, Han Hu, Zheng Zhang, and Houwen Peng. Common 7B Language Models Already Possess Strong Math Capabilities. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04706, 2024. · arXiv
- Chengpeng Li, Zheng Yuan, Hongyi Yuan, Guanting Dong, Keming Lu, Jiancan Wu, Chuanqi Tan, Xiang Wang, and Chang Zhou. MuggleMath: Assessing the Impact of Query and Response Augmentation on Math Reason- ing. In ACL, 2024.
- Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled Weight Decay Regularization. In ICLR, 2019.
- Sewon Min, Xinxi Lyu, Ari Holtzman, Mikel Artetxe, Mike Lewis, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, and Luke Zettlemoyer. Rethinking the Role of Demon- strations: What Makes In-Context Learning Work? In EMNLP, 2022.
- Luca Soldaini, Rodney Kinney, Akshita Bha- gia, Dustin Schwenk, David Atkinson, Rus- sell Authur, Ben Bogin, Khyathi Chandu, Jen- nifer Dumas, Yanai Elazar, Valentin Hofmann, Ananya Jha, Sachin Kumar, Li Lucy, Xinxi Lyu, Nathan Lambert, Ian Magnusson, Jacob Morri- son, Niklas Muennighoff, Aakanksha Naik, Crys- tal Nam, Matthew Peters, Abhilasha Ravichan- der, Kyle Richardson, Zejiang Shen, Emma Strubell, Nishant Subramani, Oyvind Tafjord, Evan Walsh, Luke Zettlemoyer, Noah Smith, Hannaneh Hajishirzi, Iz Beltagy, Dirk Groen- eveld, Jesse Dodge, and Kyle Lo. Dolma: an Open Corpus of Three Trillion Tokens for Lan- guage Model Pretraining Research. In ACL, 2024.
- Shubham Toshniwal, Ivan Moshkov, Sean Naren- thiran, Daria Gitman, Fei Jia, and Igor Gitman. OpenMathInstruct-1: A 1.8 Million Math In- struction Tuning Dataset. In NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks, 2024.
- Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc Le, Ed Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11171, 2022. · arXiv
- Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V. Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. Self- Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reason- ing in Language Models. In ICLR, 2023.
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompt- ing elicits reasoning in large language models. NeurIPS, 2022.
- Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T Kwok, Zhenguo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. MetaMath: Bootstrap Your Own Mathematical Questions for Large Language Models. In ICLR, 2024.
- Xiang Yue, Xingwei Qu, Ge Zhang, Yao Fu, Wen- hao Huang, Huan Sun, Yu Su, and Wenhu Chen. MAmmoTH: Building math generalist models through hybrid instruction tuning. In ICLR, 2024.
- Xiang Yue, Tuney Zheng, Ge Zhang, and Wenhu Chen. MAmmoTH2: Scaling Instructions from the Web. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.03548, 2024. · arXiv
- Bo-Wen Zhang, Yan Yan, Lin Li, and Guang Liu. InfinityMATH: A Scalable Instruction Tuning Dataset in Programmatic Mathematical Reason- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07089, 2024. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
OpenThoughts: Data Recipes for Reasoning Models
Guha, E., Marten, R., Keh, S., Raoof, N., Smyrnis, G., Bansal, H., Nezhurina, M., Mercat, J., Vu, T., Sprague, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.04178 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Toshniwal, S., Du, W., Moshkov, I., Kisacanin, B., Ayrapetyan, A., & Gitman, I.
- ORCID
- Du, Wei
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2410.01560
- OpenAlex
- W4403928588
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Mathematics, Computing, and Information Processing
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- mathematical reasoning, large language models, supervised fine-tuning, data synthesis, question diversity, open-source dataset, Llama 3.1, MATH benchmark
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
