카카오 / llm

2 posts

kakao

Kanana-2 개발기 (2): 개선된 post-training recipe를 중심으로 (opens in new tab)

Kakao’s development of the Kanana-2 model family represents a strategic shift toward Agentic AI, prioritizing complex reasoning and execution capabilities over simple conversational fluency. By implementing a sophisticated post-training pipeline—including a specialized Mid-training stage and refined reinforcement learning—the team successfully enhanced the model's instruction-following and tool-calling performance. This methodology ensures that the 30B parameter models excel in logical tasks and real-world agentic environments while maintaining high linguistic stability in both English and Korean. ## Mid-training and Catastrophic Forgetting Prevention * A 250B token Mid-training stage was introduced between Pre-training and Post-training to bridge the gap in reasoning, coding, and tool-calling capabilities. * The dataset comprised 200B tokens of high-quality reasoning data (Chain-of-Thought math and code) and 50B tokens of "replay" data from the original pre-training set. * This replay strategy specifically targeted "Catastrophic Forgetting," preventing the model from losing its Korean linguistic nuances and performance on benchmarks like KoMT-bench while it gained English-heavy reasoning skills. * Experimental results indicated that Mid-training serves as a foundational "force multiplier," leading to faster convergence and higher performance ceilings during subsequent Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) stages. ## Enhanced Instruction Following and Tool Calling * To optimize for Agentic AI, the developers focused on Instruction Following (IFEval) by synthesizing high-quality, long-form responses that strictly adhere to complex constraints. * Tool-calling capabilities were improved using "Rejection Sampling" (Iterative SFT), where model-generated trajectories are validated in a real execution environment; only successful outcomes are retained for training. * The training data was categorized into distinct buckets—such as Chat, Math, Code, and Tool Calling—allowing for a more balanced recipe compared to previous Kanana versions. * This approach specifically addressed multi-turn and multi-tool scenarios, ensuring the model can handle the recursive logic required for autonomous agents. ## Parallel Reinforcement Learning and Calibration Tuning * A "Parallel RL" framework was adopted to optimize different capabilities simultaneously: the "Chat" track focused on helpfulness and safety, while the "Logic" track focused on accuracy in math and programming. * The pipeline moved beyond standard SFT to include Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), utilizing DPO and PPO-style methods to align the model with human preferences. * A final "Calibration Tuning" step was implemented to ensure the model’s internal confidence levels match its actual accuracy, effectively reducing hallucinations and improving reliability in technical tasks. * Comparative benchmarks show that the Kanana-2 Instruct and Thinking models significantly outperform earlier versions and rival larger open-source models in reasoning and coding benchmarks like HumanEval and GSM8K. The Kanana-2 development cycle demonstrates that achieving "Agentic" performance requires more than just scaling data; it requires a structured transition from general language understanding to execution-verified reasoning. For organizations building AI agents, the Kanana-2 post-training recipe suggests that integrating environment-validated feedback and balancing reasoning data with foundational language "replays" is critical for creating reliable, multi-functional models.

kakao

[AI_TOP_100] 문제 출제 후기 – 기술이 아닌, 사람을 묻다. (opens in new tab)

The AI TOP 100 contest was designed to shift the focus from evaluating AI model performance to measuring human proficiency in solving real-world problems through AI collaboration. By prioritizing the "problem-solving process" over mere final output, the organizers sought to identify individuals who can define clear goals and navigate the technical limitations of current AI tools. The conclusion of this initiative suggests that true AI literacy is defined by the ability to maintain a "human-in-the-loop" workflow where human intuition guides AI execution and verification. ### Core Philosophy of Human-AI Collaboration * **Human-in-the-Loop:** The contest emphasizes a cycle of human analysis, AI problem-solving, and human verification. This ensures that the human remains the "pilot" who directs the AI engine and takes responsibility for the quality of the result. * **Strategic Intervention:** Participants were encouraged to provide AI with structural context it might struggle to perceive (like complex table relationships) and to perform data pre-processing to improve AI accuracy. * **Task Delegation:** For complex iterative tasks, such as generating images for a montage, solvers were expected to build automated pipelines using AI agents to handle repetitive feedback loops while focusing human effort on higher-level strategy. ### Designing Against "One-Shot" Solutions * **Low Barrier, High Ceiling:** Problems were designed to be intuitive enough for anyone to understand but complex enough to prevent "one-shot" solutions (the "click-and-solve" trap). * **Targeting Technical Weaknesses:** Organizers intentionally embedded technical hurdles that current LLMs struggle with, forcing participants to demonstrate how they bridge the gap between AI limitations and a correct answer. * **The Difficulty Ladder:** To account for varying domain expertise (e.g., OCR experience), problems utilized a multi-part structure. This included "Easy" starting questions to build momentum and "Medium" hint questions that guided participants toward solving the more difficult "Killer" components. ### The 4-Pattern Problem Framework * **P1 - Insight (Analysis & Definition):** Identifying meaningful opportunities or problems within complex, unstructured data. * **P2 - Action (Implementation & Automation):** Developing functional code or workflows to execute a defined solution. * **P3 - Persuasion (Strategy & Creativity):** Generating logical and creative content to communicate technical solutions to non-technical stakeholders. * **P4 - Decision (Optimization):** Making optimal choices and simulations to maximize goals under specific constraints. ### Quality Assurance and Score Calibration * **4-Stage Pipeline:** Problems moved from Ideation to Drafting (testing for one-shot immunity), then to Candidate (analyzing abuse vulnerabilities), and finally to a Final selection based on difficulty balance. * **Cross-Model Validation:** Internal and alpha testers solved problems using various models including Claude, GPT, and Gemini to ensure that no single tool could bypass the intended human-led process. * **Effort-Based Scoring:** Instead of uniform points, scores were calibrated based on the "effort cost" and human competency required to solve them. This resulted in varying total points per problem to better reflect the true difficulty of the task. In the era of rapidly evolving AI, the ability to "use" a tool is becoming less valuable than the ability to "collaborate" with it. This shift requires a move toward building automated pipelines and utilizing a "difficulty ladder" approach to tackle complex, multi-stage problems that AI cannot yet solve in a single iteration.