Live data from Hacker News

Explorative modeling: Train on the best of K guesses

alexiglad.github.io

11–20 of 36 posts

Re: Explorative modeling: Train on the best of K guesses

#11

This is just GRPO (proposed by DeepSeek), which similarly samples many plausible generations, selects the best of K, and trains that sample. Minibatch OT in flow matching also has a very similar mechanism, where samples from a noise distribution are matched to the closest data point. There is a lot of prior work here that the authors neglect to discuss, which portrays this work as more novel than it actually is.

The relation to current RLVR methods I think is interesting, they do discuss it a bit but I would be curious to see more about this as well. Quote from the paper:

Exploration beyond Pretraining. The mode collapse XMs address during pretraining also often shows up in post-training, where RL fine-tuning is known to sharpen models onto a narrow set of behaviors [76]. Recent fixes such as pass@krewards [77] and best-of-N-aware fine-tuning [78] can be seen through our lens as Forward XM, with a verifier standing in for ground truth data. These fixes act only during post-training, though; pretraining with exploration may yield base models that capture more modes in the first place, leaving RL more to select among.

Re: Explorative modeling: Train on the best of K guesses

#12
post #11

This is just GRPO (proposed by DeepSeek), which similarly samples many plausible generations, selects the best of K, and trains that sample. Minibatch OT in flow matching also has a very similar mechanism, where samples from a noise distribution are matched to the closest data point. There is a lot of prior work here that the authors neglect to discuss, which portrays this work as more novel than it actually is.

The relation to current RLVR methods I think is interesting, they do discuss it a bit but I would be curious to see more about this as well. Quote from the paper: Exploration beyond Pretraining. The mode collapse XMs address during pretraining also often shows up in post-training, where RL fine-tuning is known to sharpen models onto a narrow set of behaviors [76]. Recent fixes such as pass@krewards [77] and best-of-N…

That's fair.

On the other hand, Minibatch OT (optimal transport) was one of the more fundamental advancements early on in flow matching & rectified flow models.

This best of K approach effectively discards matches that would otherwise be preserved by optimal transport assignment.

I still think the authors here are too broad regarding their claimed novelty.

Re: Explorative modeling: Train on the best of K guesses

#13

This is just GRPO (proposed by DeepSeek), which similarly samples many plausible generations, selects the best of K, and trains that sample. Minibatch OT in flow matching also has a very similar mechanism, where samples from a noise distribution are matched to the closest data point. There is a lot of prior work here that the authors neglect to discuss, which portrays this work as more novel than it actually is.

GRPO increases the likelihood of samples that are better than average, not just the single best, and decreases that of samples that are worse than average. This method doesn't even involve an explicit likelihood, so it's a completely different mechanism.

A comparison with minibatch optimal transport is in appendix A.2 of the paper.

Re: Explorative modeling: Train on the best of K guesses

#14
post #13

This is just GRPO (proposed by DeepSeek), which similarly samples many plausible generations, selects the best of K, and trains that sample. Minibatch OT in flow matching also has a very similar mechanism, where samples from a noise distribution are matched to the closest data point. There is a lot of prior work here that the authors neglect to discuss, which portrays this work as more novel than it actually is.

GRPO increases the likelihood of samples that are better than average, not just the single best, and decreases that of samples that are worse than average. This method doesn't even involve an explicit likelihood, so it's a completely different mechanism. A comparison with minibatch optimal transport is in appendix A.2 of the paper.

You're right about the original GRPO proposal, but there are simplified variants that do just use best of K sampling.

GRPO (or GRPO like approaches) for diffusion/flow matching similarly can be likelihood free.

Re: Explorative modeling: Train on the best of K guesses

#17
Although this is a neat idea, the author appears to be confused about how generative modelling works.

They repeatedly claim that previous approaches rely on factorization to reduce things to guessable chunks to avoid the 'blur problem'. This is a misunderstanding. Previous approaches solve this problem by modelling a distribution as output rather than a point. Factorization is one way of representing the distribution, but the key point is that even for the small chunks we predict an output distribution, not a point estimate.

Factored models have no issue producing TV static as an image. Each individual guess is impossible, and yet they don't produce a constant grey averaged image.

Normalizing flows, though not considered particularly efficient, are not factored at all, do not proceed in small steps, and yet still have no issues with blur because they predict a distribution.

Their approach appears to be a hard version of a latent variable model. It may be a good idea, but it isn't a fundamental change in the way they suggest.

Re: Explorative modeling: Train on the best of K guesses

#18
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GRPO increases the likelihood of samples that are better than average, not just the single best, and decreases that of samples that are worse than average. This method doesn't even involve an explicit likelihood, so it's a completely different mechanism. A comparison with minibatch optimal transport is in appendix A.2 of the paper.

You're right about the original GRPO proposal, but there are simplified variants that do just use best of K sampling. GRPO (or GRPO like approaches) for diffusion/flow matching similarly can be likelihood free.

Without anchoring on the group average it's hardly Group-Relative and without likelihood there's no Policy; that doesn't leave much of the original GRPO unchanged...

Do you have a particular paper in mind that does likelihood-free best-of-K but just calls it GRPO?

Re: Explorative modeling: Train on the best of K guesses

#20
post #7

This is amazing and I think will probably end up being a pretty important development. I was just reading this great breakdown of how diffusion Gemma works: https://newsletter.maartengrootendorst.com/p/a-visual-guide-... In reference to the difficulties with applying this to autoregressive LLMs - I wonder if these type of hybrids might be a good candidate for this approach.

I agree, this seems like an important discovery. And it hits a sweetspot of being effective and very simple to implement. Have a look at the pseudocode comparison at the bottom of the accompanying github page: https://explorative-modeling.github.io/ Also, a very well-structured and easy to follow blog post by the author. I very much enjoyed reading it!

[deleted]
Post reply on HN