## Line Chart: The training dynamics of simple prompt guidance ### Overview The chart compares the accuracy reward of two methods ("With simple guidance" and "Original GRPO") across global training steps (-2 to 34). Both methods show distinct trajectories, with "With simple guidance" demonstrating a more stable improvement pattern. ### Components/Axes - **X-axis (Global step)**: Ranges from -2 to 34 in increments of 2. Ticks labeled at -2, 0, 2, ..., 34. - **Y-axis (Accuracy reward)**: Scaled from 0.45 to 0.60 in increments of 0.05. - **Legend**: Located at bottom-right, with: - Blue squares: "With simple guidance" - Red squares: "Original GRPO" ### Detailed Analysis 1. **With simple guidance (Blue line)**: - Starts at ~0.54 at x=-2 - Drops to ~0.48 at x=4 - Further declines to ~0.47 at x=10 - Reaches ~0.46 at x=20 - Sharp increase to ~0.58 at x=34 2. **Original GRPO (Red line)**: - Begins at ~0.57 at x=-2 - Falls to ~0.53 at x=4 - Declines to ~0.49 at x=10 - Drops to ~0.48 at x=20 - Sharp rise to ~0.59 at x=34 ### Key Observations - Both methods show a **U-shaped trajectory**, with initial decline followed by recovery. - "With simple guidance" maintains **higher stability** during the decline phase (smaller drops between x=4 and x=20). - Final accuracy rewards: - With simple guidance: ~0.58 - Original GRPO: ~0.59 - The **steepest increase** occurs between x=20 and x=34 for both methods. ### Interpretation The data suggests that simple prompt guidance introduces **stabilizing effects** during early training phases, reducing performance volatility. While both methods converge at similar final accuracy levels (~0.58-0.59), the blue line's smoother trajectory implies better generalization or robustness to training noise. The sharp final ascent in both lines may indicate a critical adaptation phase or parameter optimization breakthrough. The x-axis starting at -2 is unusual but does not affect the relative comparison between methods.