Skip to content

Conversation

@garyzhang99
Copy link
Collaborator

Description

As the title says.
Minor fix in math mix config.

Checklist

Please check the following items before code is ready to be reviewed.

  • Code has passed all tests
  • Docstrings have been added/updated in Google Style
  • Documentation has been updated
  • Code is ready for review

@garyzhang99 garyzhang99 requested a review from hiyuchang August 18, 2025 12:12
Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Summary of Changes

Hello @garyzhang99, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request addresses a minor configuration issue within the mix_math.yaml file. The changes involve removing an unnecessary parameter from the algorithm configuration and adjusting the number of training epochs for both the main buffer and the SFT warmup dataset. These adjustments aim to correct the configuration and potentially improve the training process.

Highlights

  • Algorithm Configuration Adjustment: The repeat_times parameter has been removed from the algorithm section, streamlining the configuration.
  • Training Epochs Update: The total_epochs setting for the main buffer has been increased from 1 to 10, likely to allow for more extensive training.
  • SFT Warmup Dataset Epochs: The sft_warmup_dataset configuration now explicitly sets total_epochs to 10, aligning its training duration with the main buffer.
Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point in your pull request via creating an issue comment (i.e. comment on the pull request page) using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands.

Feature Command Description
Code Review /gemini review Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary /gemini summary Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment @gemini-code-assist Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in issue comments and review comments.
Help /gemini help Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

  1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution.

Copy link
Contributor

@gemini-code-assist gemini-code-assist bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Code Review

This pull request fixes a configuration issue in the mix_math example. It correctly removes an invalid repeat_times parameter from policy_loss_fn_args and adjusts the number of training epochs. A key change is adding a total_epochs setting specifically for the SFT warmup dataset.

My review focuses on this new total_epochs parameter. While it may be functionally necessary, it introduces potential redundancy with the top-level buffer.total_epochs and creates an inconsistency with the configuration generator UI, which could lead to issues for other users. I have provided a comment suggesting an update to the config generator to maintain consistency.

@hiyuchang
Copy link
Collaborator

/unittest-module-common

@github-actions
Copy link

Summary

Tests 📝 Passed ✅ Failed ❌ Skipped ⏭️ Other ❓ Flaky 🍂 Duration ⏱️
27 27 0 0 0 0 299ms

Tests

Test Name Status Flaky Duration
tests/common/config_test.py::TestConfig::test_all_examples_are_valid 2ms
tests/common/config_test.py::TestConfig::test_config_flatten 1ms
tests/common/config_test.py::TestConfig::test_continue_from_checkpoint_is_valid 1ms
tests/common/config_test.py::TestConfig::test_load_default_config 4ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestEID::test_eid_properties 1ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestExperience::test_action_mask_and_logprobs_type 1ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestExperience::test_assertions 1ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestExperience::test_dpo_experience 1ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestExperience::test_gather 1ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestExperience::test_multi_turn_experience 1ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestExperience::test_serialize_deserialize 1ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestExperience::test_single_turn_experience 1ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestExperience::test_to_dict 1ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestExperienceConversion::test_batch_conversion 1ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestExperienceConversion::test_dpo_experience_batch_conversion 1ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestExperienceConversion::test_experience_model_experience_conversion 1ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestExperienceConversion::test_gather_experiences_with_custom_fields 1ms
tests/common/experience_test.py::TestExperienceConversion::test_multiturn_experience_batch_converstion 1ms
tests/common/vllm_test.py::ModelWrapperTest_0::test_generate 36ms
tests/common/vllm_test.py::ModelWrapperTest_1::test_generate 52ms
tests/common/vllm_test.py::ModelWrapperTest_2::test_generate 49ms
tests/common/vllm_test.py::ModelWrapperTest_3::test_generate 35ms
tests/common/vllm_test.py::ModelWrapperTest_4::test_generate 46ms
tests/common/vllm_test.py::TestAPIServer::test_api 23ms
tests/common/vllm_test.py::TestTokenizer::test_assistant_token_mask 1ms
tests/common/vllm_test.py::TestAPIServerToolCall_0_deepseek_r1::test_api_tool_calls 21ms
tests/common/vllm_test.py::TestAPIServerToolCall_1::test_api_tool_calls 19ms

Github Test Reporter by CTRF 💚

@hiyuchang hiyuchang merged commit 3e4f747 into modelscope:main Aug 18, 2025
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants