Smaller, Weaker, Yet Better: Training LLM Reasoners via Compute-Optimal Sampling

Training on high-quality synthetic data from strong language models~(LMs) is a common strategy to improve the reasoning performance of LMs.In this work, we revisit whether this strategy is compute-optimal under a fixed inference budget (e.g., FLOPs). To do so, we investigate the trade-offs between generating synthetic data using a stronger but more expensive (SE) model versus a weaker but cheaper (WC) model. We evaluate the generated data across three key metrics: coverage, diversity, and false positive rate, and show that the data from WC models may have higher coverage and diversity, but also exhibit higher false positive rates. We then finetune LMs on data from SE and WC models in different settings: knowledge distillation, self-improvement, and a novel weak-to-strong improvement setup where a weaker LM teaches reasoning to a stronger LM. Our findings reveal that models finetuned on WC-generated data consistently outperform those trained on SE-generated data across multiple benchmarks and multiple choices of WC and SE models.These results challenge the prevailing practice of relying on SE models for synthetic data generation, suggesting that WC may be the compute-optimal approach for training advanced LM reasoners.