Improving Large Language Model Fine-tuning for Solving Math Problems
Yixin Liu, Avi Singh, C. Daniel Freeman, John D Co-Reyes, Peter J Liu
OpenReview ground truth
TL;DR — We investigate different fine-tuning methods for improving the large language models on the math problem solving task.
Abstract
Despite their success in many natural language tasks, solving math problems remains a significant challenge for large language models (LLMs). A large gap exists between LLMs' pass-at-one and pass-at-N performance in solving math problems, suggesting LLMs might be close to finding correct solutions, motivating our exploration of fine-tuning methods to unlock LLMs' performance. Using the challenging MATH dataset, we investigate three fine-tuning strategies: (1) solution fine-tuning, where we fine-tune to generate a detailed solution for a given math problem; (2) solution-cluster re-ranking, where the LLM is fine-tuned as a solution verifier/evaluator to choose among generated candidate solution clusters; (3) multi-task sequential fine-tuning, which integrates both solution generation and evaluation tasks together efficiently to enhance the LLM performance. With these methods, we present a thorough empirical study on a series of PaLM~2 models and find: (1) The quality and style of the step-by-step solutions used for fine-tuning can make a significant impact on the model performance; (2) While solution re-ranking and majority voting are both effective for improving the model performance when used separately, they can also be used together for an even greater performance boost; (3) Multi-task fine-tuning that sequentially separates the solution generation and evaluation tasks can offer improved performance compared with the solution fine-tuning baseline. Guided by these insights, we design a fine-tuning recipe that yields approximately 58.8% accuracy on the MATH dataset with fine-tuned PaLM 2-L models, an 11.2% accuracy improvement over the few-shot performance of pre-trained PaLM 2-L model with majority voting.
Author context
Most prolific author: 3 submissions (credibility 1.00).
No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).
Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.
Ranking trajectory
Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.
Battle history — 38 comparisons
Ranked above opponent in 44% of matchups.
- ▲ beat ACID: Abstractive, Content-Based IDs for D… ×6
- ▼ lost to Beyond Size: How Gradients Shape Pruning D… ×4
- ▼ lost to Unified Language-Vision Pretraining in LLM… ×4
- ▲ beat A Recipe for Watermarking Diffusion Models ×4
- ▲ beat Instance Needs More Care: Rewriting Prompt… ×4
Judge assessments
Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 38)