arXiv AI

Controllable and Verifiable Process Data Synthesis for Process Reward Models

arXiv:2605. 02395v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Process reward models (PRMs) rely on high-quality process supervision data, yet existing construction methods often provide limited control over error location, error type, and trajectory consistency.

arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 16

Pushing the Boundaries of Natural Reasoning: Interleaved Bonus from Formal-Logic Verification

arXiv:2601. 22642v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) show remarkable capabilities, yet their stochastic next-token prediction creates logical inconsistencies and reward hacking that formal symbolic systems avoid.

By Chuxue Cao, Jinluan Yang, Haoran Li, Kunhao Pan, Zijian Zhao, Zhengyu Chen, Yuchen Tian, Lijun Wu, Conghui He, Sirui Han, Yike Guo
OpenAI Blog
May 31, 2023

Improving mathematical reasoning with process supervision

We've trained a model to achieve a new state-of-the-art in mathematical problem solving by rewarding each correct step of reasoning (“process supervision”) instead of simply rewarding the correct final answer (“outcome supervision”). In addition to boosting performance relative to outcome supervision, process supervision also has an important alignment benefit: it directly trains the model to produce a chain-of-thought that is endorsed by humans.

arXiv AI
Jun 4

SCI-PRM: A Tool Aware Process Reward Model for Scientific Reasoning Verification

arXiv:2606. 04579v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Process Reward Models (PRMs) have achieved remarkable success in mathematical reasoning, their application in complex scientific domains-such as biology, chemistry, and physics remains largely unexplored.

By Xiangyu Zhao, Hengyuan Zhao, Yiheng Wang, Wanghan Xu, Yuhao Zhou, Qinglong Cao, Zhiwang Zhou, Lei Bai, Wenlong Zhang, Xiao-Ming Wu
arXiv AI
Jun 9

Correct Is Not Enough: Training Reasoning Planners with Executor-Grounded Rewards

arXiv:2605. 03862v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has become a common way to improve explicit reasoning in large language models, but final-answer correctness alone does not reveal whether the reasoning trace is faithful, reliable, or useful to the model that consumes it.

By Tianyang Han, Hengyu Shi, Junjie Hu, Xu Yang, Zhiling Wang, Junhao Su