Upload folder using huggingface_hub
Browse files- README.md +10 -10
- merges.txt +0 -1
README.md
CHANGED
|
@@ -65,8 +65,8 @@ To construct this dataset, we propose an efficient data construction pipeline. S
|
|
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
- **For samples with clear ground truths:**
|
| 67 |
the model is prompted to first provide the reasoning process and then give the final answer in the format like `Final Answer: ***`.
|
| 68 |
-
Responses matching the ground truth answer constitute the positive set
|
| 69 |
-
Given these responses labeled as positive or negative, we build the preference pairs by selecting a chosen response
|
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
- **For samples without clear ground truths:**
|
| 72 |
we propose a simple yet effective method: Dropout Next-Token Prediction (Dropout NTP).
|
|
@@ -85,16 +85,16 @@ The data construction pipeline is open-sourced, see more details in our [documen
|
|
| 85 |
### Mixed Preference Optimization
|
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
The key insight behind MPO is that *an effective PO process should enable the model to learn the relative preference between pairs of responses, the absolute quality of individual responses, and the process for generating preferred responses.* We define the training objective as a combination of
|
| 88 |
-
preference loss
|
| 89 |
-
quality loss
|
| 90 |
-
and generation loss
|
| 91 |
referred to as Mixed Preference Optimization:
|
| 92 |
|
| 93 |
$$
|
| 94 |
\mathcal{L}=w_{p}\cdot\mathcal{L}_{\text{p}} + w_{q}\cdot\mathcal{L}_{\text{q}} + w_{g}\cdot\mathcal{L}_{\text{g}},
|
| 95 |
$$
|
| 96 |
|
| 97 |
-
where
|
| 98 |
In this work, we empirically compare different variants of preference loss.
|
| 99 |
Based on the experimental results, we use DPO as our preference loss and BCO as our quality loss.
|
| 100 |
|
|
@@ -106,8 +106,8 @@ $$
|
|
| 106 |
\mathcal{L}_{\text{p}}=-\log \sigma\left(\beta \log \frac{\pi_\theta\left(y_c \mid x\right)}{\pi_0\left(y_c \mid x\right)}-\beta \log \frac{\pi_\theta\left(y_r \mid x\right)}{\pi_0\left(y_r \mid x\right)}\right),
|
| 107 |
$$
|
| 108 |
|
| 109 |
-
where
|
| 110 |
-
The policy model
|
| 111 |
|
| 112 |
Additionally, the BCO loss is employed as the quality loss, which helps the model to understand the absolute quality of individual responses.
|
| 113 |
The loss function is defined as:
|
|
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ $$
|
|
| 116 |
\mathcal{L}_{\text{q}}=\mathcal{L}_{\text{q}}^+ + \mathcal{L}_{\text{q}}^-,
|
| 117 |
$$
|
| 118 |
|
| 119 |
-
where
|
| 120 |
Each response type's loss is calculated independently, requiring the model to differentiate the absolute quality of individual responses. The loss terms are given by:
|
| 121 |
|
| 122 |
$$
|
|
@@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ $$
|
|
| 127 |
\mathcal{L}_{\text{q}}^-=-\log \sigma\left(-\left(\beta \log \frac{\pi_\theta\left(y_r \mid x\right)}{\pi_0\left(y_r \mid x\right)} - \delta\right) \right),
|
| 128 |
$$
|
| 129 |
|
| 130 |
-
where
|
| 131 |
|
| 132 |
Finally, the SFT loss is used as the generation loss to help the model learn the generation process of preferred responses.
|
| 133 |
The loss function is defined as:
|
|
|
|
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
- **For samples with clear ground truths:**
|
| 67 |
the model is prompted to first provide the reasoning process and then give the final answer in the format like `Final Answer: ***`.
|
| 68 |
+
Responses matching the ground truth answer constitute the positive set \\(mathcal{Y}_p\\), while those that do not match make up the negative set \\(\mathcal{Y}_n\\). Additionally, responses that fail to provide a clear final answer are also merged into \\(\mathcal{Y}_n\\).
|
| 69 |
+
Given these responses labeled as positive or negative, we build the preference pairs by selecting a chosen response \\(y_c\\) from \\(\mathcal{Y}_p\\) and a negative response \\(y_r\\) from \\(\mathcal{Y}_n\\).
|
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
- **For samples without clear ground truths:**
|
| 72 |
we propose a simple yet effective method: Dropout Next-Token Prediction (Dropout NTP).
|
|
|
|
| 85 |
### Mixed Preference Optimization
|
| 86 |
|
| 87 |
The key insight behind MPO is that *an effective PO process should enable the model to learn the relative preference between pairs of responses, the absolute quality of individual responses, and the process for generating preferred responses.* We define the training objective as a combination of
|
| 88 |
+
preference loss \\(\mathcal{L}_{\text{p}}\\),
|
| 89 |
+
quality loss \\(\mathcal{L}_{\text{q}}\\),
|
| 90 |
+
and generation loss \\(\mathcal{L}_{\text{g}}\\),
|
| 91 |
referred to as Mixed Preference Optimization:
|
| 92 |
|
| 93 |
$$
|
| 94 |
\mathcal{L}=w_{p}\cdot\mathcal{L}_{\text{p}} + w_{q}\cdot\mathcal{L}_{\text{q}} + w_{g}\cdot\mathcal{L}_{\text{g}},
|
| 95 |
$$
|
| 96 |
|
| 97 |
+
where \\(w_{*}\\) represents the weight assigned to each loss component.
|
| 98 |
In this work, we empirically compare different variants of preference loss.
|
| 99 |
Based on the experimental results, we use DPO as our preference loss and BCO as our quality loss.
|
| 100 |
|
|
|
|
| 106 |
\mathcal{L}_{\text{p}}=-\log \sigma\left(\beta \log \frac{\pi_\theta\left(y_c \mid x\right)}{\pi_0\left(y_c \mid x\right)}-\beta \log \frac{\pi_\theta\left(y_r \mid x\right)}{\pi_0\left(y_r \mid x\right)}\right),
|
| 107 |
$$
|
| 108 |
|
| 109 |
+
where \\(\beta\\) is the KL penalty coefficient, and \\(x\\), \\(y_c\\), and \\(y_r\\) are user query, chosen response, and rejected response, respectively.
|
| 110 |
+
The policy model \\(\pi_\theta\\) is initialized from model \\(\pi_0\\).
|
| 111 |
|
| 112 |
Additionally, the BCO loss is employed as the quality loss, which helps the model to understand the absolute quality of individual responses.
|
| 113 |
The loss function is defined as:
|
|
|
|
| 116 |
\mathcal{L}_{\text{q}}=\mathcal{L}_{\text{q}}^+ + \mathcal{L}_{\text{q}}^-,
|
| 117 |
$$
|
| 118 |
|
| 119 |
+
where \\(\mathcal{L}_{\text{q}}^{+}\\) and \\(\mathcal{L}_{\text{q}}^{+}\\) represent the loss for chosen and rejected responses, respectively.
|
| 120 |
Each response type's loss is calculated independently, requiring the model to differentiate the absolute quality of individual responses. The loss terms are given by:
|
| 121 |
|
| 122 |
$$
|
|
|
|
| 127 |
\mathcal{L}_{\text{q}}^-=-\log \sigma\left(-\left(\beta \log \frac{\pi_\theta\left(y_r \mid x\right)}{\pi_0\left(y_r \mid x\right)} - \delta\right) \right),
|
| 128 |
$$
|
| 129 |
|
| 130 |
+
where \\(\delta\\) represents the reward shift, calculated as the moving average of previous rewards to stabilize training.
|
| 131 |
|
| 132 |
Finally, the SFT loss is used as the generation loss to help the model learn the generation process of preferred responses.
|
| 133 |
The loss function is defined as:
|
merges.txt
CHANGED
|
@@ -1,4 +1,3 @@
|
|
| 1 |
-
#version: 0.2
|
| 2 |
Ġ Ġ
|
| 3 |
ĠĠ ĠĠ
|
| 4 |
i n
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 |
Ġ Ġ
|
| 2 |
ĠĠ ĠĠ
|
| 3 |
i n
|