Our large-scale reinforcement learning algorithm teaches the model how to think productively using its chain of thought in a highly data-efficient training process. We have found that the performance of o1 consistently improves with more reinforcement learning (train-time compute) and with more time spent thinking (test-time compute). The constraints on scaling this approach differ substantially from those of LLM pretraining, and we are continuing to investigate them.

To highlight the reasoning improvement over GPT‑4o, we tested our models on a diverse set of human exams and ML benchmarks. We show that o1 significantly outperforms GPT‑4o on the vast majority of these reasoning-heavy tasks. Unless otherwise specified, we evaluated o1 on the maximal test-time compute setting.

In many reasoning-heavy benchmarks, o1 rivals the performance of human experts. Recent frontier models1 do so well on MATH2 and GSM8K that these benchmarks are no longer effective at differentiating models. We evaluated math performance on AIME, an exam designed to challenge the brightest high school math students in America. On the 2024 AIME exams, GPT‑4o only solved on average 12% (1.8/15) of problems. o1 averaged 74% (11.1/15) with a single sample per problem, 83% (12.5/15) with consensus among 64 samples, and 93% (13.9/15) when re-ranking 1000 samples with a learned scoring function. A score of 13.9 places it among the top 500 students nationally and above the cutoff for the USA Mathematical Olympiad.

We also evaluated o1 on GPQA diamond, a difficult intelligence benchmark which tests for expertise in chemistry, physics and biology. In order to compare models to humans, we recruited experts with PhDs to answer GPQA-diamond questions. We found that o1 surpassed the performance of those human experts, becoming the first model to do so on this benchmark. These results do not imply that o1 is more capable than a PhD in all respects — only that the model is more proficient in solving some problems that a PhD would be expected to solve. On several other ML benchmarks, o1 improved over the state-of-the-art. With its vision perception capabilities enabled, o1 scored 78.2% on MMMU, making it the first model to be competitive with human experts. It also outperformed GPT‑4o on 54 out of 57 MMLU subcategories.

Similar to how a human may think for a long time before responding to a difficult question, o1 uses a chain of thought when attempting to solve a problem. Through reinforcement learning, o1 learns to hone its chain of thought and refine the strategies it uses. It learns to recognize and correct its mistakes. It learns to break down tricky steps into simpler ones. It learns to try a different approach when the current one isn’t working. This process dramatically improves the model’s ability to reason. To illustrate this leap forward, we showcase the chain of thought from o1‑preview on several difficult problems below.