Equation 7 · Comparing the Main Approaches to Training Data and Synthetic Data
What does this equation mean?
Read the formula alongside the article passage below. Each part has a deeper page with its role in the equation, the supporting passage and nearby citations.
the fraction. Read the equation part by part below; each part has a contextual explanation and a link to its mathematical background.
Read it piece by piece
How to interpret it
Read this expression with the definitions, units, and assumptions supplied by the article.
What the article says around this equation
Rejection sampling generates multiple candidate completions per prompt from a model and keeps only the ones a separate scoring step accepts, using the survivors as supervised fine-tuning data. Llama 2’s RLHF pipeline used exactly this for its first four rounds, generating candidates from the 70-billion-parameter model, scoring them against a trained reward model, and only introducing proximal policy optimisation as a second mechanism in later rounds once the returns from sampling alone began to taper [ 6 ] . A second, independent demonstration in mathematical reasoning makes the mechanism even more explicit: rejection sampling fine-tuning collects correct reasoning paths directly from a…
Read the full surrounding passage
Rejection sampling generates multiple candidate completions per prompt from a model and keeps only the ones a separate scoring step accepts, using the survivors as supervised fine-tuning data. Llama 2’s RLHF pipeline used exactly this for its first four rounds, generating candidates from the 70-billion-parameter model, scoring them against a trained reward model, and only introducing proximal policy optimisation as a second mechanism in later rounds once the returns from sampling alone began to taper [ 6 ] . A second, independent demonstration in mathematical reasoning makes the mechanism even more explicit: rejection sampling fine-tuning collects correct reasoning paths directly from a supervised model’s own sampled outputs, with no additional human annotation, and combining rejection samples pooled from multiple models raised a 7-billion-parameter LLaMA’s GSM8K accuracy from a 35.9 percent supervised baseline to 49.3 percent [ 7 ] . The method’s economics follow directly from its mechanism: if a checker accepts a fraction p of generated candidates, the expected cost of producing one accepted sample scales as
Sources cited in the surrounding passage
- [6] Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models ↗
- [7] Scaling Relationship on Learning Mathematical Reasoning with Large Language Models ↗
These citations give research context. Read each source to check which claims it supports.
Return to Comparing the Main Approaches to Training Data and Synthetic Data