brikdavies's picture
Upload conditional_lambda_sweep/eval_results.md with huggingface_hub
55c457d verified
|
Raw
History Blame Contribute Delete
1.68 kB

Conditional Length Penalty Eval Results

Eval Setup

  • Model: Qwen/Qwen3-1.7B (base)
  • Dataset: DeepScaleR, difficulty 0-50% (harder problems)
  • Num problems: 100
  • Num generations: 1 per problem
  • Temperature: 0.6, top_p: 0.95
  • Max tokens: 8192
  • Correctness: math_verify symbolic equivalence
  • Format check: has ... and \boxed{}

Results

Checkpoint Accuracy Formatted Mean Tokens Median Tokens
base (Qwen3-1.7B) 28.0% 54.0% 6,821 8,192
cond lambda=1.0 step 50 15.0% 100.0% 730 450
cond lambda=1.0 step 100 17.0% 88.0% 2,012 871
cond lambda=1.0 step 150 18.0% 96.0% 2,174 1,240
cond lambda=1.0 step 200 25.0% 89.0% 3,121 2,199
cond lambda=0.3 step 50 16.0% 76.0% 837 534
cond lambda=0.3 step 100 19.0% 90.0% 1,713 1,078
cond lambda=0.3 step 150 3.0% 27.0% 2,774 2,049
cond lambda=0.3 step 200 21.0% 84.0% 3,505 2,304
cond lambda=0.05 step 50 17.0% 97.0% 1,242 908
cond lambda=0.05 step 100 13.0% 99.0% 1,162 716
cond lambda=0.05 step 150 5.0% 38.0% 2,855 1,580

Notes

  • All checkpoints are conditional length penalty (penalty only applied when answer is correct)
  • lambda=0.3 step 150 and lambda=0.05 step 150 both show severe accuracy collapse
  • lambda=0.3 step 200 recovers to near-base accuracy (21% vs 28%) with much shorter responses
  • lambda=0.05 was killed at step 177 so no step 200 checkpoint exists
  • Eval on hard problems (0-50% solve rate) — training was on easier problems (50-95%)