Evangelinejy commited on
Commit
1a755bf
·
verified ·
1 Parent(s): 76b61ae

Update to the <think></think> prompt used by the current code-RL runs

Browse files
README.md CHANGED
@@ -35,21 +35,46 @@ split stay reportable after training on this data.
35
  | `test` | 378 | exactly the problems in [`evalplus/mbppplus`](https://huggingface.co/datasets/evalplus/mbppplus) |
36
  | `heldout_mbpp_test` | 276 | MBPP's canonical test split (task_id 11-510) that is *not* in MBPP+ |
37
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
38
  ## Why 320 and not 974
39
 
40
  MBPP `full` is 974 problems across four canonical splits (prompt 10, test 500,
41
  validation 90, train 374). Two things are removed from the training pool:
42
 
43
- 1. **Everything in MBPP+** (378 problems). MBPP+ is derived from MBPP-sanitized
44
- and consumes 378 of that config's 427 problems.
45
  2. **MBPP's canonical test split.** Deduplicating against MBPP+ alone would
46
- leave 596 training problems, but 276 of those are canonical MBPP test — fine
47
  if MBPP+ is your only benchmark, fatal if you ever want standard MBPP numbers.
48
 
49
  Deduplicating MBPP-**sanitized** against MBPP+ leaves only **49** problems,
50
  which is why the sanitized config alone is not viable for training. Each problem
51
- here uses its *sanitized* text and corrected tests where one exists (427 of 974
52
- do) while keeping the other 547 — sanitized quality at usable size.
53
 
54
  Leakage is asserted at build time: no train `task_id` appears in MBPP+, and no
55
  train row comes from a withheld split.
@@ -70,17 +95,6 @@ routing. Setup imports (`test_setup_code` / `test_imports`) are folded into each
70
  assert string, because every test runs as a standalone script:
71
  `solution + "\n" + assert_case[i]`.
72
 
73
- The prompt is a two-turn chat whose system message matches the math/kk runs of
74
- the same study, so prompt format is not a confound across tasks:
75
-
76
- ```
77
- system: Please reason step by step and put your final solution in a single ```python code block.
78
- user: <task> + half the tests as an interface hint + fenced-block instruction
79
- ```
80
-
81
- Half the tests (`floor(N/2)`) are shown so the model can infer the function name
82
- and signature; **all** tests are used for reward.
83
-
84
  ## Validation
85
 
86
  All 974 MBPP reference solutions score 1.0 through the verifier.
 
35
  | `test` | 378 | exactly the problems in [`evalplus/mbppplus`](https://huggingface.co/datasets/evalplus/mbppplus) |
36
  | `heldout_mbpp_test` | 276 | MBPP's canonical test split (task_id 11-510) that is *not* in MBPP+ |
37
 
38
+ ## Prompt
39
+
40
+ Each row is a two-turn chat asking for reasoning inside an explicit
41
+ `<think></think>` region, then a fenced Python block:
42
+
43
+ ```
44
+ system: Please reason step by step inside a <think> </think> block, then put
45
+ your final solution in a single ```python code block.
46
+ user: <task>
47
+ Your implementation should pass tests like the following ...
48
+ First reason step by step inside <think> and </think>. Then write your
49
+ complete solution in a single markdown fenced code block ...
50
+ ```
51
+
52
+ The delimiter is deliberate. Without it, reasoning is unmarked prose and the
53
+ only signal about it is total response length, which conflates "stopped
54
+ reasoning" with "wrote shorter code". Measured on Qwen2.5-3B during RL on this
55
+ data, mean response length fell from ~446 tokens at step 9 to 54 by step 95
56
+ while training reward held at 0.83: MBPP is easy enough that reasoning earns no
57
+ extra reward, so GRPO strips it. The tag does not prevent that collapse, but it
58
+ makes the think region separately measurable.
59
+
60
+ Half the tests (`floor(N/2)`) are shown so the model can infer the function name
61
+ and signature; **all** tests are used for reward.
62
+
63
  ## Why 320 and not 974
64
 
65
  MBPP `full` is 974 problems across four canonical splits (prompt 10, test 500,
66
  validation 90, train 374). Two things are removed from the training pool:
67
 
68
+ 1. **Everything in MBPP+** (378). MBPP+ is derived from MBPP-sanitized and
69
+ consumes 378 of that config's 427 problems.
70
  2. **MBPP's canonical test split.** Deduplicating against MBPP+ alone would
71
+ leave 596 training problems, but 276 of those are canonical MBPP test -- fine
72
  if MBPP+ is your only benchmark, fatal if you ever want standard MBPP numbers.
73
 
74
  Deduplicating MBPP-**sanitized** against MBPP+ leaves only **49** problems,
75
  which is why the sanitized config alone is not viable for training. Each problem
76
+ here uses its *sanitized* text and corrected tests where one exists (427 of 974),
77
+ keeping the other 547 -- sanitized quality at usable size.
78
 
79
  Leakage is asserted at build time: no train `task_id` appears in MBPP+, and no
80
  train row comes from a withheld split.
 
95
  assert string, because every test runs as a standalone script:
96
  `solution + "\n" + assert_case[i]`.
97
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
98
  ## Validation
99
 
100
  All 974 MBPP reference solutions score 1.0 through the verifier.
data/heldout_mbpp_test.parquet CHANGED
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
1
  version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
2
- oid sha256:8749b790e12913372c5a3bdbc9701a4c12bd431ab9f6ed5b5fbe844e75e39406
3
- size 62264
 
1
  version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
2
+ oid sha256:0e1836eb713172bc78ff15e36e26136e7f8e9e44099a42ccf2043e0b94047f10
3
+ size 64073
data/test.parquet CHANGED
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
1
  version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
2
- oid sha256:7e5b78d660746c69674a345cececc812459e6f381ce9de3683702d30c61a3e6e
3
- size 82958
 
1
  version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
2
+ oid sha256:3bbe3e83af727923879172673ba789385d16fca9eae8c6fe9b49eb7777a0e399
3
+ size 84552
data/train.parquet CHANGED
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
1
  version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
2
- oid sha256:a227e2853c9ee12e0367e875dd436b3b7491663b060e034a3015cbd9d957df6d
3
- size 73303
 
1
  version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
2
+ oid sha256:81b5afa5eb84b5f4b90c56ebef21cf47adb1adac68336712a77c214c9f3e2f42
3
+ size 75058