Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2407.21787v1

In the realm of language model training, scaling compute has significantly enhanced the capabilities of models. However, when it comes to inference, we often limit the amount of compute to just one attempt per problem. In this study, we delve into the concept of inference compute as another dimension for scaling by increasing the number of generated samples. Across various tasks and models, it is observed that coverage - which refers to the fraction of problems solved by any attempt - scales with the number of samples over four orders of magnitude. This increase in coverage directly translates into improved performance in domains like coding and formal proofs where answers can be automatically verified. For instance, when applying repeated sampling to SWE-bench Lite, it was found that the fraction of issues solved with DeepSeek-V2-Coder-Instruct increased from 15.9% with one sample to 56% with 250 samples, surpassing the single-attempt state-of-the-art success rate of 43%. Moreover, utilizing current API pricing revealed that amplifying the more affordable DeepSeek model with five samples proved to be more cost-effective and efficient in solving problems compared to paying a premium for one sample from more advanced models like GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Interestingly, a log-linear relationship between coverage and the number of samples was identified across multiple experiments, suggesting the existence of inference-time scaling laws. Furthermore, it was noted that while identifying correct samples out of numerous generations remains crucial for domains lacking automatic verifiers. from GSM8K and MATH datasets using Llama-3 models resulted in coverage exceeding 95% with 10,000 samples. However, traditional methods such as majority voting or reward models plateaued beyond several hundred samples and did not fully scale with the sample budget. Additionally, cautionary tales were shared regarding software development tasks and verification tools. were identified in SWE-bench Lite where inconsistencies in test suites led to false positives/negatives even on ground-truth solutions. Similarly, false negatives were encountered in CodeContests due to limitations in existing verification tools. Overall, this study highlights that scaling inference compute through repeated sampling can lead to significant improvements in coverage across various tasks and models. It demonstrates how amplifying weaker models with multiple samples can sometimes outperform single attempts from more powerful models. The findings underscore the importance of robust verifiers and highlight areas for further research in improving decision-making processes based on sampled outputs.

• - Scaling compute has enhanced language model training capabilities
• - Inference compute as a dimension for scaling by increasing generated samples
• - Coverage scales with number of samples, leading to improved performance in coding and formal proofs
• - Repeated sampling increased problem-solving success rates significantly
• - Amplifying more affordable models with multiple samples can be cost-effective and efficient
• - Log-linear relationship between coverage and number of samples identified
• - Identifying correct samples crucial for domains lacking automatic verifiers
• - Traditional methods like majority voting or reward models plateaued beyond several hundred samples
• - Cautionary tales shared regarding inconsistencies in test suites and limitations in verification tools
• - Scaling inference compute through repeated sampling can lead to significant improvements in coverage across tasks and models

Summary1. Making computers work faster has helped teach computers to understand languages better. 2. Using computers to make guesses can help us get better results by making more guesses. 3. The more guesses we make, the better our results will be in writing and proving things. 4. Trying different solutions many times can help us solve problems much better. 5. Using cheaper models and making many guesses can save money and time. Definitions- Scaling: Making something bigger or smaller - Compute: Using computers to do tasks - Inference: Making educated guesses based on information - Samples: Examples used for testing or learning - Coverage: How well a system performs across different scenarios

In the world of natural language processing, scaling compute has been a game-changer for training language models. However, when it comes to inference - the process of generating outputs from a trained model - we often limit ourselves to just one attempt per problem. But what if we could scale inference compute as well? This is exactly what a recent research paper explores, and its findings are quite intriguing. The study delves into the concept of using repeated sampling as another dimension for scaling inference. By increasing the number of generated samples, researchers observed that coverage - which refers to the fraction of problems solved by any attempt - scales with the number of samples over four orders of magnitude. In simpler terms, more samples lead to better performance in tasks like coding and formal proofs where answers can be automatically verified. To put this into perspective, let's take an example from SWE-bench Lite dataset. With just one sample, DeepSeek-V2-Coder-Instruct was able to solve 15.9% of issues. However, when this model was amplified with 250 samples, its success rate increased to a whopping 56%, surpassing even state-of-the-art single-attempt success rate of 43%. This clearly shows how repeated sampling can significantly improve coverage and ultimately performance in various tasks. But why choose weaker models like DeepSeek over more advanced ones like GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet? Well, here's where things get interesting. The researchers also took into account current API pricing and found that amplifying DeepSeek with just five samples proved to be more cost-effective and efficient compared to paying a premium for one sample from more powerful models. Moreover, across multiple experiments conducted on different tasks and models, a log-linear relationship between coverage and number of samples was identified. This suggests that there may exist some sort of inference-time scaling laws which could potentially help us make better decisions about how many samples to use for a given problem. However, the study also highlights some cautionary tales. In software development tasks and verification tools, inconsistencies in test suites can lead to false positives or negatives even on ground-truth solutions. This was observed in SWE-bench Lite where certain issues were incorrectly marked as solved due to flaws in the test suite. Similarly, limitations of existing verification tools can result in false negatives, as seen in CodeContests. Overall, this research paper sheds light on the potential benefits of scaling inference compute through repeated sampling. It not only demonstrates how amplifying weaker models with multiple samples can sometimes outperform single attempts from more powerful models but also emphasizes the importance of robust verifiers and highlights areas for further research in improving decision-making processes based on sampled outputs. In conclusion, while scaling compute has been widely recognized as crucial for training language models, this study shows that it is equally important for inference as well. By increasing coverage through repeated sampling, we can unlock new levels of performance and efficiency across various tasks and models. And with further research into inference-time scaling laws and improved verifiers, we may be able to push the boundaries even further.