Next-Token Prediction Task Assumes Optimal Data Ordering for LLM Training in Proof Generation
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
In the field of large language model (LLM)-based proof generation, despite extensive training on large datasets such as ArXiv, LLMs still exhibit only modest performance on proving tasks of moderate difficulty. We believe that this is partly due to the widespread presence of suboptimal ordering within the data for each proof used in training. For example, published proofs often follow a purely logical order, where each step logically proceeds from the previous steps based on the deductive rules. This order is designed to facilitate the verification of the proof's soundness, rather than to help people and models learn the discovery process of the proof. In proof generation, we argue that the optimal order for one training data sample occurs when the relevant intermediate supervision for a particular proof step in the proof is always positioned to the left of that proof step. We call such order the intuitively sequential order. We validate our claims using two tasks: intuitionistic propositional logic theorem-proving and digit multiplication. Our experiments verify the order effect and provide support for our explanations. We demonstrate that training is most effective when the proof is in the intuitively sequential order. Moreover, the order effect and the performance gap between models trained on different data orders can be substantial -- with an 11 percent improvement in proof success rate observed in the propositional logic theorem-proving task, between models trained on the optimal order compared to the worst order. Lastly, we define a common type of order issue in advanced math proofs and find that 17.3 percent of theorems with nontrivial proofs in the first two chapters of a widely used graduate-level mathematics textbook suffer from this issue. A detailed list of those proofs is provided in the appendix.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Oct 2024.
Builds on
26 of 36 references.
References · 26
- 2014Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimizationcited by 37,240
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
- 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,944
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,708
- 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,455
- 2023LeanDojo: Theorem Proving with Retrieval-Augmented Language Modelscited by 427
- 2023The Reversal Curse: LLMs trained on "A is B" fail to learn "B is A"cited by 407
- 2023Llemma: An Open Language Model For Mathematicscited by 388
- 2022HyperTree Proof Search for Neural Theorem Provingcited by 197
14 more
- 2023Solving Challenging Math Word Problems Using GPT-4 Code Interpreter with Code-based Self-Verificationcited by 166
- 2024The pitfalls of next-token predictioncited by 160
- 2023OpenWebMath: An Open Dataset of High-Quality Mathematical Web Textcited by 155
- 2023Goat: Fine-tuned LLaMA Outperforms GPT-4 on Arithmetic Taskscited by 84
- 2021NaturalProofs: Mathematical Theorem Proving in Natural Languagecited by 81
- 2023Auto-Regressive Next-Token Predictors are Universal Learnerscited by 67
- 2023Magnushammer: A Transformer-Based Approach to Premise Selectioncited by 50
- 2024Reverse Training to Nurse the Reversal Cursecited by 49
- 2022Sub-Task Decomposition Enables Learning in Sequence to Sequence Taskscited by 41
- 2023An Independent Evaluation of ChatGPT on Mathematical Word Problems (MWP)cited by 31
- 2019Learning to Reason in Large Theories without Imitationcited by 27
- 2024Unraveling the Mystery of Scaling Laws: Part Icited by 24
- 2024Benchmarking the Capabilities of Large Language Models in Transportation System Engineering: Accuracy, Consistency, and Reasoning Behaviorscited by 13
- 2024Learn from Failure: Fine-Tuning LLMs with Trial-and-Error Data for Intuitionistic Propositional Logic Provingcited by 11
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
2 papers.