arXiv Machine Learning

The Weakest Link Tells It All: Outcome-Supervised Process Reward Modeling via Learnable Credit Assignment

arXiv:2606. 27739v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Process reward models (PRMs) enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by providing fine-grained feedback, yet training PRMs typically requires expensive stepwise annotations.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 17

Rethinking Reward Supervision: Rubric-Conditioned Self-Distillation

Post-training of reasoning language models is commonly driven by supervised distillation and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. Distillation often relies on chain-of-thought annotations that are expensive to obtain and may themselves be noisy, incomplete, or partially incorrect; even when the final solution is correct, an imperfect rationale can interfere with learning.

arXiv AI
Jun 4

Smart Picks in the Dark: Towards Efficient RLVR for Reasoning via Tracing Metacognitive Pivots

arXiv:2606. 04503v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has greatly advanced large reasoning models (LRMs), but it requires timely training on a huge fully-annotated dataset.

By Guangcheng Zhu, Shenzhi Yang, Haobo Wang, Xing Zheng, Yingfan MA, Xuening Feng, Zhongqi Chen, Bowen Song, Weiqiang Wang, Gang Chen
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 12

Reinforcement Learning-based Semi-supervised Knowledge Distillation with LLM-as-a-Judge

arXiv:2604. 02621v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reinforcement Learning (RL) substantially improves the reasoning capabilities of language models, but most existing RL fine-tuning approaches rely entirely on ground-truth verifiable rewards and thus labeled datasets with verifiable answers.

By Yiyang Shen, Lifu Tu, Weiran Wang
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
arXiv AI
Jun 2

The Paradox of Outcome Optimization: A Causal Information-Theoretic Bound on Reasoning Shortcuts in LLMs

arXiv:2606. 00674v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) aligned via outcome-based Reinforcement Learning (RL) frequently exhibit a critical failure mode: they achieve high performance on in-distribution benchmarks while demonstrating brittle reasoning capabilities on out-of-distribution (OOD) tasks.

By Zihan Chen, Yiming Zhang, Wenxiang Geng, Zenghui Ding, Yining Sun
arXiv AI
Jul 3

Who Gets the Reward & Who Gets the Blame? Evaluation-Aligned Training Signals for Multi-LLM Agents

arXiv:2511. 10687v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) in multi-agent systems (MAS) have shown promise for complex tasks, yet current training methods lack principled ways to connect system-level evaluation with agent- and message-level learning.

By Chih-Hsuan (Bella), Yang, Tanwi Mallick, Le Chen, Krishnan Raghavan, Amal Gueroudji, Ian T. Foster, Rajeev Thakur