The paper introduces LSR‑Ben, a benchmark designed to evaluate process reward models (PRMs) on scientific and logical reasoning tasks, addressing a gap left by existing math‑focused benchmarks. Experiments on 22 models reveal that PRMs and LLMs perform poorly in non‑mathematical domains, with LLMs tending to over‑identify errors while PRMs tend to overlook them. LSR‑Ben aims to spur research that broadens PRM applicability and improves LLM reasoning.
By Zhouhao Sun, Xuan Zhang, Xiao Ding, Bibo Cai, Li Du, Kai Xiong, Xinran Dai, Fei Zhang, weidi tang, Zhiyuan Kan, Yang Zhao, Bing Qin, Ting Liu
arXiv:2608. 08514v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We independently reproduce two recent methods for making large language model (LLM) reasoning more reliable, and stress-test them across domains and models (RPC across four new task domains with Qwen3-8B, LCF across four 7-8B models).
By Minhan Cho, Jimin Kweon
arXiv:2606. 01682v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the best response from multiple small-model samples using a stronger scorer is a simple inference-time strategy, but fails when the small model has already committed to incorrect reasoning paths.
By Atoosa Chegini, Soheil Feizi
Selecting the best response from multiple small-model samples using a stronger scorer is a simple inference-time strategy, but fails when the small model has already committed to incorrect reasoning paths. PRM guided search avoids this by scoring candidate continuations during generation, but requires a reward model trained with step-level labels.
arXiv:2608. 09351v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Test-time scaling improves LLM accuracy but multiplies inference cost, making the accuracy gained per unit of compute the metric that matters in deployment.
By Nikita Kozodoi, Zainab Afolabi, Jack Butler
arXiv:2608. 04001v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can solve substantially harder reasoning problems with more inference-time compute.
By Mohsen Hariri, Weicong Chen, Nahal Shahini, Vikash Singh, Kai Ye, Amirhossein Samandar, Debargha Ganguly, Sreehari Sankar, Yanyan Zhang, Shouren Wang, Jerry Peng, Biyao Zhang, Michael Hinczewski, Vipin Chaudhary
arXiv:2509. 03059v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown that their reasoning capabilities can be significantly improved through Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Reward (RLVR), particularly in domains like mathematics and programming, where ground-truth correctness can be automatically evaluated.
By Xingyue Huang, Rishabh, Gregor Franke, Ziyi Yang, Jiamu Bai, Weijie Bai, Jinhe Bi, Zifeng Ding, Yiqun Duan, Chengyu Fan, Wendong Fan, Xin Gao, Ruohao Guo, Yuan He, Zhuangzhuang He, Xianglong Hu, Neil Johnson, Bowen Li, Fangru Lin, Siyu Lin, Tong Liu, Yunpu Ma, Hao Shen, Hao Sun, Beibei Wang, Fangyijie Wang, Hao Wang, Haoran Wang, Yang Wang, Yifeng Wang, Zhaowei Wang, Ziyang Wang, Yifan Wu, Zikai Xiao, Chengxing Xie, Fan Yang, Junxiao Yang, Qianshuo Ye, Ziyu Ye, Guangtao Zeng, Yuwen Ebony Zhang, Zeyu Zhang, Zihao Zhu, Bernard Ghanem, Philip Torr, Guohao Li
arXiv:2607. 14707v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models routinely produce fluent answers to single-shot prompts, yet deploying them as reliable components of a domain decision system is substantially harder.
By Akash Raj
arXiv:2607. 11266v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has significantly advanced the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs), yet it often incurs substantial computational costs due to over-reasoning: the generation of redundant, verbose, or irrelevant steps.
By Daeyeop Lee, Hwanjo Yu
The paper introduces Stepwise Marginal Information Gain (MIG), an intrinsic process reward that evaluates how each reasoning step of a large language model (LLM) or vision-language model (VLM) improves the likelihood of the reference answer. MIG rewards only new likelihood maxima, preventing duplicate credit, and is combined with outcome, format, and self‑distillation objectives to guide training. Experiments on eight benchmarks show that this method outperforms outcome‑only reinforcement learning and improves accuracy by up to 4.8 points over binary‑reward training, including a 12.6‑point gain on MathVerse and a 12.9‑point advantage on vision‑language transfer at 7B parameters.
By Xiangwei Wang, Wei Wang, Ken Chen, Nanduni Nimalsiri, Sachith Seneviratne, Saman Halgamuge
arXiv:2607. 10139v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Selecting the correct answer from a pool of candidate reasoning chains is the engine of test-time scaling, yet the standard selectors each carry a cost: self-consistency inherits the errors of the single model it resamples, and trained reward models need labeled data and transfer poorly off-distribution.
By Ning Liu
arXiv:2604. 09482v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains remains challenging as intermediate steps are often not locally verifiable: unlike math or code, evaluating step correctness may require synthesizing clues across large external knowledge sources.
By Jiwoong Sohn, Tomasz Sternal, Kenneth Styppa, Torsten Hoefler, Michael Moor