We introduce Gemma 3, a multimodal addition to the Gemma family of lightweight open models, ranging in scale from 1 to 27 billion parameters. This version introduces vision understanding abilities, a wider coverage of languages and longer context - at least 128K tokens. We also change the architecture of the model to reduce the KV-cache memory that tends to explode with long context. This is achieved by increasing the ratio of local to global attention layers, and keeping the span on local attention short. The Gemma 3 models are trained with distillation and achieve superior performance to Gemma 2 for both pre-trained and instruction finetuned versions. In particular, our novel post-training recipe significantly improves the math, chat, instruction-following and multilingual abilities, making Gemma3-4B-IT competitive with Gemma2-27B-IT and Gemma3-27B-IT comparable to Gemini-1.5-Pro across benchmarks. We release all our models to the community.

An effective method for improving the performance of large language models (LLMs) is to leverage additional computation at inference-time: various works (Hosseini et al., 2024; Kumar et al., 2024; Lightman et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2024) have shown that by using search, re-ranking, multi-turn revision, and more generally, any approach that makes use of more tokens and inference-time compute, the performance of LLMs on various tasks can be significantly improved--so much that investing in improving inference-time computation might prove more beneficial than increasing model pre-training compute (Snell et al., 2024). Despite this promise, existing work largely considers using inference-time computation as an optional post-hoc design choice, after conventional pre-training and fine-tuning. However, decoupling training and inference-time computation is not optimal; for example, if we knew that an LLM is allowed to make multiple attempts to solve a math problem, then it may be better to fine-tune it to explore diverse problem-solving strategies, rather than simply generating the candidates that represent the model's best attempt at solving the problem. Within the context of reasoning problems, these performance gains may be significant, as LLMs often fail due to their inability to draw complex inferences about the input and their internal knowledge (Chen et al., 2024). We argue that the effectiveness of inference-time computation can be substantially increased by explicitly considering the inference procedure during training. We study this inference-aware fine-tuning paradigm using the Best-of-N (BoN) inference strategy, where the LLM generates multiple candidate responses, and a verifier selects the best one according to some scoring function (Cobbe et al., 2021).

Current RLHF frameworks for aligning large language models (LLMs) typically assume a fixed prompt distribution, which is sub-optimal and limits the scalability of alignment and generalizability of models. To address this, we introduce a general open-ended RLHF framework that casts alignment as an asymmetric game between two players: (i) a creator that generates increasingly informative prompt distributions using reward signals, and (ii) a solver that learns to produce more preferred responses on prompts produced by the creator. This framework of Evolving Alignment via Asymmetric Self-Play (eva), results in a simple and efficient approach that can utilize any existing RLHF algorithm for scalable alignment. eva outperforms state-of-the-art methods on widely-used benchmarks, without the need of any additional human crafted prompts. Specifically, eva improves the win rate of Gemma-2-9B-it on Arena-Hard from 51.6% to 60.1% with DPO, from 55.7% to 58.9% with SPPO, from 52.3% to 60.7% with SimPO, and from 54.8% to 60.3% with ORPO, surpassing its 27B version and matching claude-3-opus. This improvement is persistent even when new human crafted prompts are introduced. Finally, we show eva is effective and robust under various ablation settings.

The dominant paradigm for RLHF is online and on-policy RL: synchronously generating from the large language model (LLM) policy, labelling with a reward model, and learning using feedback on the LLM's own outputs. While performant, this paradigm is computationally inefficient. Inspired by classical deep RL literature, we propose separating generation and learning in RLHF. This enables asynchronous generation of new samples while simultaneously training on old samples, leading to faster training and more compute-optimal scaling. However, asynchronous training relies on an underexplored regime, online but off-policy RLHF: learning on samples from previous iterations of our model. To understand the challenges in this regime, we investigate a fundamental question: how much off-policyness can we tolerate for asynchronous training to speed up learning but maintain performance? Among several RLHF algorithms we tested, we find that online DPO is most robust to off-policy data, and robustness increases with the scale of the policy model. We study further compute optimizations for asynchronous RLHF but find that they come at a performance cost, giving rise to a trade-off. Finally, we verify the scalability of asynchronous RLHF by training LLaMA 3.1 8B on an instruction-following task 40% faster than a synchronous run while matching final performance.

Recent advances in knowledge distillation (KD) have enabled smaller student models to approach the performance of larger teacher models. However, popular methods such as supervised KD and on-policy KD, are adversely impacted by the knowledge gaps between teacher-student in practical scenarios. Supervised KD suffers from a distribution mismatch between training with a static dataset and inference over final student-generated outputs. Conversely, on-policy KD, which uses student-generated samples for training, can suffer from low-quality training examples with which teacher models are not familiar, resulting in inaccurate teacher feedback. To address these limitations, we introduce Speculative Knowledge Distillation (SKD), a novel approach that leverages cooperation between student and teacher models to generate high-quality training data on-the-fly while aligning with the student's inference-time distribution. In SKD, the student proposes tokens, and the teacher replaces poorly ranked ones based on its own distribution, transferring high-quality knowledge adaptively. We evaluate SKD on various text generation tasks, including translation, summarization, math, and instruction following, and show that SKD consistently outperforms existing KD methods across different domains, data sizes, and model initialization strategies. Figure 1: SKD outperforms supervised and on-policy KD for our tested tasks: Assamese-to-English translation, dialogue summarization, and arithmetic reasoning. Supervised KD is trained on ground-truth outputs, while on-policy KD uses self-generated data. All models use greedy decoding for evaluation. Work done as a student researcher at Google Cloud AI Research. Left: SKD addresses the limitations of on-policy knowledge distillation (KD) by filtering out low-quality student samples and replacing them with teacher generated tokens. However, the substantial inference-time costs and memory footprint associated with LLMs present significant challenges for practical deployment (Agarwal et al., 2024). Therefore, compressing LLMs while maintaining their performance is crucial for real-time practical applications. Knowledge Distillation (KD) (Hinton et al., 2015) is a widely used method to compress LLMs by transferring knowledge from a larger teacher model to a smaller student model. Traditional KD approaches, such as supervised KD (Sanh et al., 2020) and SeqKD (Kim & Rush, 2016b), rely on a static dataset of outputs to train the student model. However, this fixed dataset can lead to a distribution mismatch between the training data and the student's generated samples at inference time, hindering the student's learning.

A promising approach for improving reasoning in large language models is to use process reward models (PRMs). PRMs provide feedback at each step of a multi-step reasoning trace, potentially improving credit assignment over outcome reward models (ORMs) that only provide feedback at the final step. However, collecting dense, per-step human labels is not scalable, and training PRMs from automatically-labeled data has thus far led to limited gains. To improve a base policy by running search against a PRM or using it as dense rewards for reinforcement learning (RL), we ask: "How should we design process rewards?". Our key insight is that, to be effective, the process reward for a step should measure progress: a change in the likelihood of producing a correct response in the future, before and after taking the step, corresponding to the notion of step-level advantages in RL. Crucially, this progress should be measured under a prover policy distinct from the base policy. We theoretically characterize the set of good provers and our results show that optimizing process rewards from such provers improves exploration during test-time search and online RL. In fact, our characterization shows that weak prover policies can substantially improve a stronger base policy, which we also observe empirically. We validate our claims by training process advantage verifiers (PAVs) to predict progress under such provers, and show that compared to ORMs, test-time search against PAVs is $>8\%$ more accurate, and $1.5-5\times$ more compute-efficient. Online RL with dense rewards from PAVs enables one of the first results with $5-6\times$ gain in sample efficiency, and $>6\%$ gain in accuracy, over ORMs.

We study the depth of grade-school math (GSM) problem-solving capabilities of LLMs. To this end, we evaluate their performance on pairs of existing math word problems together so that the answer to the second problem depends on correctly answering the first problem. Our findings reveal a significant reasoning gap in most LLMs, that is performance difference between solving the compositional pairs and solving each question independently. This gap is more pronounced in smaller, more cost-efficient, and math-specialized models. Moreover, instruction-tuning recipes and code generation have varying effects across LLM sizes, while finetuning on GSM can lead to task overfitting. Our analysis indicates that large reasoning gaps are not because of test-set leakage, but due to distraction from additional context and poor second-hop reasoning. Overall, LLMs exhibit systematic differences in their reasoning abilities, despite what their performance on standard benchmarks indicates.

A critical component in knowledge distillation is the means of coupling the teacher and student. The predominant sequence knowledge distillation method involves supervised learning of the student against teacher-decoded outputs, and is exemplified by the current state of the art, which incorporates minimum Bayes risk (MBR) decoding. In this paper we seek to integrate MBR more tightly in distillation training, specifically by using several high scoring MBR translations, rather than a single selected sequence, thus capturing a rich diversity of teacher outputs. Our experiments on English to German and English to Japanese translation show consistent improvements over strong baseline methods for both tasks and with varying model sizes. Additionally, we conduct a detailed analysis focusing on data efficiency and capacity curse aspects to elucidate MBR-n and explore its further potential.

Scalable oversight protocols aim to enable humans to accurately supervise superhuman AI. In this paper we study debate, where two AI's compete to convince a judge; consultancy, where a single AI tries to convince a judge that asks questions; and compare to a baseline of direct question-answering, where the judge just answers outright without the AI. We use large language models (LLMs) as both AI agents and as stand-ins for human judges, taking the judge models to be weaker than agent models. We benchmark on a diverse range of asymmetries between judges and agents, extending previous work on a single extractive QA task with information asymmetry, to also include mathematics, coding, logic and multimodal reasoning asymmetries. We find that debate outperforms consultancy across all tasks when the consultant is randomly assigned to argue for the correct/incorrect answer. Comparing debate to direct question answering, the results depend on the type of task: in extractive QA tasks with information asymmetry debate outperforms direct question answering, but in other tasks without information asymmetry the results are mixed. Previous work assigned debaters/consultants an answer to argue for. When we allow them to instead choose which answer to argue for, we find judges are less frequently convinced by the wrong answer in debate than in consultancy. Further, we find that stronger debater models increase judge accuracy, though more modestly than in previous studies.

In this report, we introduce the Gemini 1.5 family of models, representing the next generation of highly compute-efficient multimodal models capable of recalling and reasoning over fine-grained information from millions of tokens of context, including multiple long documents and hours of video and audio. The family includes two new models: (1) an updated Gemini 1.5 Pro, which exceeds the February version on the great majority of capabilities and benchmarks; (2) Gemini 1.5 Flash, a more lightweight variant designed for efficiency with minimal regression in quality. Gemini 1.5 models achieve near-perfect recall on long-context retrieval tasks across modalities, improve the state-of-the-art in long-document QA, long-video QA and long-context ASR, and match or surpass Gemini 1.0 Ultra's state-of-the-art performance across a broad set of benchmarks. Studying the limits of Gemini 1.5's long-context ability, we find continued improvement in next-token prediction and near-perfect retrieval (>99%) up to at least 10M tokens, a generational leap over existing models such as Claude 3.0 (200k) and GPT-4 Turbo (128k). Finally, we highlight real-world use cases, such as Gemini 1.5 collaborating with professionals on completing their tasks achieving 26 to 75% time savings across 10 different job categories, as well as surprising new capabilities of large language models at the frontier; when given a grammar manual for Kalamang, a language with fewer than 200 speakers worldwide, the model learns to translate English to Kalamang at a similar level to a person who learned from the same content.