Self-Consistency Preference Optimization
Open accessAbstract
Self-alignment, whereby models learn to improve themselves without human annotation, is a rapidly growing research area. However, existing techniques often fail to improve complex reasoning tasks due to the difficulty of assigning correct rewards. An orthogonal approach that is known to improve correctness is self-consistency, a method applied at inference time based on multiple sampling in order to find the most consistent answer. In this work, we extend the self-consistency concept to help train models. We thus introduce self-consistency preference optimization (ScPO), which iteratively trains consistent answers to be preferred over inconsistent ones on unsupervised new problems. We show ScPO leads to large improvements over conventional reward model training on reasoning tasks such as GSM8K and MATH, closing the gap with supervised training with gold answers or preferences, and that combining ScPO with standard supervised learning improves results even further. On ZebraLogic, ScPO finetunes Llama-3 8B to be superior to Llama-3 70B, Gemma-2 27B, and Claude-3 Haiku.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Previous self-rewarding and self-play training works primarily focus on open-domain instruction following rather than mathematical reasoning or employ preference-based optimization strategies such as DPO instead of online reinforcement learning algorithms.
“However, these works primarily focus on open-domain instruction following (Yuan et al., 2025; Chen et al., 2024) rather than mathematical reasoning or employ preference-based optimization strategies (Prasad et al., 2024) such as DPO (Rafailov et al., 2023) instead of online reinforcement learning algorithms.”
From TTRL: Test-Time Reinforcement Learning (2025) · cites this paper as Prasad et al., 2024
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zweiger, A., Pari, J., Guo, H., Akyürek, E., Kim, Y., & Agrawal, P. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 3 · see citing works
TTRL: Test-Time Reinforcement Learning
Zuo, Y., Zhang, K., Sheng, L., Qu, S., Cui, G., Zhu, X., Li, H., Zhang, Y., Long, X., Hua, E., et al. (2025) · arXiv · Cited by 7 · see citing works
“Previous studies have explored self-rewarding [32, 58] and self-play training [5] for unlabeled data.”
- Authors
- Prasad, A., Yuan, W., Pang, R. Y., Xu, J., Fazel-Zarandi, M., Bansal, M., Sukhbaatar, S., Weston, J., & Yu, J.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- New York University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2411.04109
- OpenAlex
- W4404388952
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1846185, 2112635, CAREER)
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (N66001-19-2-4031, N66001-19)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- self-consistency, preference optimization, self-alignment, reward modeling, unsupervised training, mathematical reasoning, GSM8K, MATH, Llama 3, large language models, iterative training
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