PreprintCited by 2Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

Self-Consistency Preference Optimization

Open access
Prasad, Archiki, Yuan, Weizhe, Pang, Richard Yuanzhe, Xu, Jing, Fazel-Zarandi, Maryam, Bansal, Mohit, Sukhbaatar, Sainbayar, Weston, Jason +1 more·2024·arXiv

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2411.04109

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • 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

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)
OpenAlex
W4404388952
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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