Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 22 cited by

Free Process Rewards without Process Labels

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Step-by-step reward models for free, no step labels needed

desk verdict A correct, useful identity that turns outcome labels into a dense token-level score; whether that score is a true process reward is asserted, not yet validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01981 v1 pith:BNDGZ3FZ submitted 2024-12-02 cs.LG cs.CL

Lifan Yuan , Wendi Li , Huayu Chen , Ganqu Cui , Ning Ding , Kaiyan Zhang , Bowen Zhou , Zhiyuan Liu
show 1 more author
Hao Peng
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CL
keywords implicitprocessrewardmodeloutcomelog-likelihoodratiodirectpreferenceoptimizationcross-entropylossbest-of-Nsamplingmathematicalreasoningsupervision
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to show that a dense, step-by-step reward model, normally trained with labels on every intermediate reasoning step, can instead be obtained at no extra cost from an outcome-level reward model. The key move is to parameterize the outcome reward as the log-likelihood ratio $\beta \log(\pi_\theta(y)/\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}(y))$ and then read per-step scores off the same language model. The paper proves that the cumulative sum of per-token log-ratios equals an expectation of the outcome reward under the reference model, so the difference between consecutive prefix sums is a process reward. If this is right, the largest cost of building process reward models—step-level annotation—disappears, and the resulting models match or beat Monte-Carlo-tree-search baselines on math reasoning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the telescoping identity for prefix log-likelihood-ratio sums. Because $q_t^\theta$ is an exact expectation of the outcome reward under the reference distribution, subtracting consecutive prefix sums isolates the incremental contribution of step $t$, turning any outcome-trained model with the reward parameterization into a dense verifier. The paper uses this identity to define process rewards as advantages, the convention it adopts from prior work.

What would settle it

Train an implicit PRM on a dataset with gold step-level correctness labels, then compare its per-step scores with those labels; if correct steps do not reliably receive higher scores than incorrect steps, the claimed process reward is not a usable correctness signal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Proposition 3.1: with the reward $r_\theta(y) = \beta \log(\pi_\theta(y)/\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}(y))$, the prefix score $q_t^\theta(y_{<t}, y_t) = \sum_{i=1}^t \beta \log(\pi_\theta(y_i|y_{<i})/\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}(y_i|y_{<i}))$ is exactly $\beta \log \mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\mathrm{ref}}(y|y_{\le t})} e^{r_\theta(y)/\beta}$, the Q-value of the outcome reward at step $t$. The per-step difference $q_t - q_{t-1}$ therefore gives a process reward without any step-level supervision. The paper also argues that this implicit Q-value lies between the soft and hard Monte-Carlo estimates and that it can be instantiated with DPO, KTO, NCA, or cross-entropy loss. On MATH best-of-N reranking, the resulting models outperform MCTS-style step-labeling baselines while consuming a small fraction of the data-collection FLOPs.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the change in the prefix score from one step to the next is a meaningful measure of how good that step is, rather than just a number that happens to be computable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Process reward models can be trained from outcome labels alone, eliminating step-label annotation and the look-ahead trajectory sampling it requires.
  • Any preference-learning objective that uses the log-likelihood-ratio reward parameterization, plus cross-entropy on unpaired data, yields a dense verifier at no extra training cost.
  • On MATH best-of-N reranking, the implicit PRM outperforms MCTS-based step-labeling baselines while using less than 1/38 of the data-collection FLOPs.
  • Scaling the number of responses per instruction helps more than scaling the number of instructions, and cross-entropy remains useful even with one response per instruction.
  • Adding step labels from the MCTS pipeline does not further improve the outcome-trained implicit PRM in the reported experiments.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: if the identity transfers beyond math, any outcome-labeled dataset—code, dialogue, tool use—could yield dense token-level rewards without annotation; a direct test would compare the per-step scores with human step judgments.
  • Editorial inference: the observation that the reference model can be dropped suggests its role is mainly a training-time KL anchor, not a required inference component; this could be tested on more diverse tasks.
  • Editorial inference: the null result for extra step labels may reflect the noise of MCTS labels and the advantage convention rather than a general uselessness of step supervision; a cleaner test uses human-annotated steps.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that an outcome reward model (ORM) trained with the reward parameterization r_θ(y) = β log(π_θ(y)/π_ref(y)) implicitly yields a process reward model (PRM). The key identity is Proposition 3.1: the prefix sum q_t^θ(y_{≤t}) = Σ_{i=1}^t β log(π_θ(y_i|y_{<i})/π_ref(y_i|y_{<i})) equals β log E_{π_ref(y|y_{≤t})} exp(r_θ(y)/β), so q_t can be interpreted as a Q-value. The per-step difference q_t − q_{t−1} is then presented as a process reward obtainable without step labels. The paper instantiates this idea with DPO, KTO, NCA, and CE losses, trains on 33K math instructions with eight responses each, and evaluates best-of-N accuracy on MATH-500 with three different generation models. It reports that the implicit PRMs outperform reimplemented Math-Shepherd and AutoPSV at substantially lower FLOPs, and it analyzes scaling behavior, data composition, majority voting, and the role of the reference model.

Significance. If the process-reward interpretation is accepted, the contribution is significant: it removes the need for step-level annotations, connects standard preference-learning objectives to dense token-level rewards, and generalizes the Q-function insight of Rafailov et al. (2024) beyond DPO. The algebraic identity in Proposition 3.1 is correct and elegantly derived, and the empirical study is broad in terms of objectives, data scaling, and inference-cost accounting. The paper also releases code and data, which supports reproducibility. However, the significance is conditional: the claim that the per-step difference is a faithful step-level correctness signal is not directly validated. All experiments use outcome-level best-of-N ranking, which can be improved by a dense token-level filter even if the per-step scores do not correspond to correct or incorrect steps. The paper's central novelty therefore needs either a step-level validation or a more cautious framing as a free dense outcome reward.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (3)] The claim that a 'process reward' is obtained for free rests on the convention (Section 2) that r_t^θ = q_t^θ − q_{t−1}^θ is the process reward. This is a definitional choice, not a consequence of Proposition 3.1: by construction the difference equals β log(π_θ(y_t|y_{<t})/π_ref(y_t|y_{<t})). The paper does not test whether these per-step values agree with human or automatic step-level labels, and the best-of-N protocol in Section 4.1 scores each step and takes the minimum, a procedure that any dense token-level score can improve. The central 'free process reward' claim is therefore unvalidated; the authors should either add a step-level evaluation (e.g., agreement with PRM800K or ProcessBench labels) or explicitly reframe the contribution as a free dense outcome reward.
  2. [Section 5.3, Table 2] The experiment augmenting an implicit PRM with Math-Shepherd step labels is the only direct evidence about the process-reward interpretation, and it is inconclusive. It uses a single second-stage objective (step-level KTO) on MCTS-generated labels, and the paper itself acknowledges annotation noise and potential suboptimality of the training algorithm as confounds. This result cannot establish that process labels are generally unnecessary; it only shows that this particular recipe provides no gain. The conclusion that 'we can already train a strong PRM without process label' goes beyond what this experiment supports.
  3. [Proposition 3.2, Eq. (4)] Proposition 3.2 is stated without proof, and its notation is inconsistent with Eq. (1): the lower bound is written as E_{π_ref(y|y<t)} r_θ(y) in the proposition, while Eq. (1) defines q_t^s as E_{π_ref(y|y≤t)} r_θ(y). The inequality chain and the equality conditions (β→∞ and β→0) are plausible, but because the proposition is load-bearing for the claim that the implicit Q-value is more accurate than MCTS-based hard and soft estimates, it needs a correct statement and a proof or at least a derivation in the appendix.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains many typos, including 'requies' (Introduction), 'parameterizin' (Introduction), 'perfroms' (Section 2), 'traiinng' (Section 5.2), 'Balanceed' (Table 1), 'real-worl' (Section 5.2), 'the the' (Section 5.5), and 'b larger' (Section 5.5.1). The paper would benefit from a careful proofreading pass.
  2. [Table 2] The table caption says 'Implicit PRM' but the text in Section 5.3 says the results are for 'implicit PRM (DPO)'; the caption should state the objective explicitly, since DPO, KTO, NCA, and CE have different performance profiles.
  3. [Abstract and Section 1] The phrase 'the only assumption' overstates the case: in addition to the log-ratio parameterization, the method requires a reference model, a choice of β, and a policy that is a causal LM. These are not all stated as assumptions in the introduction.
  4. [Section 5.5.2] The statement that the proposition holds under a uniform reference model is only true for relative comparisons in best-of-N selection, not for the absolute Q-value interpretation; the text later makes this clear, but the wording in the first paragraph of Section 5.5.2 could be sharper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The free per-step reward is fixed by the definition of q_t as a prefix sum; the proposition is a true identity, but the 'process reward' claim is a relabeling of the per-token log-ratio, and only the empirical BoN evaluation is independent.

  1. self definitional [Section 3, Proposition 3.1 and Eq. (3); advantage convention in Section 2]
    "Define qt θ(y<t, yt) := Pt i=1 β log πθ(yi|y<i)/πref(yi|y<i). ... Hence, qt θ represents an exact expectation of outcome reward rθ at step t, i.e., the Q value. ... process reward rt θ can be obtained by: rt θ := qt θ − qt−1 θ = ..."

    By construction q_t is defined as the running sum of per-token log-ratios, so q_t - q_{t-1} must equal the t-th token's log-ratio whatever the training objective or labels are. Proposition 3.1's exponential-average identity follows from this definition together with r_theta = beta log(pi_theta/pi_ref); it is a true algebraic consequence, not an independent derivation that the per-step difference is a faithful process reward. Calling the difference a process reward imports the advantage convention from Lu et al. (2024); under that convention, the claimed result is a tautology.

full rationale

The algebraic core of Proposition 3.1 is correct and provable: with r_theta = beta log(pi_theta/pi_ref), the prefix sum is beta log E_{pi_ref} exp(r_theta/beta). However, the paper's central 'free process reward' conclusion obtains by defining q_t to be that prefix sum and then adopting the convention that process reward equals the advantage q_t - q_{t-1}; under those two moves, the per-step reward is the per-token log-ratio by definition. No step labels and no independent process-reward validation enter the derivation. The empirical section is genuinely non-circular: BoN accuracy on MATH-500 with three generators, scaling analyses, and ablations are external evidence that the dense log-ratio score is useful for selection. But those experiments cannot distinguish a valid PRM from a dense token-level outcome score, and Section 5.3's null result with added step labels leaves the semantic identity of the per-step score unverified. One step is therefore flagged as self-definitional; the rest of the paper's contributions (cheap training, data scaling, CE loss, majority voting) are empirical and independent of the circular label. Score 6 reflects partial circularity: the derivation of the process reward reduces by construction, while the empirical evaluation stands on its own. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method rests entirely on the log-likelihood ratio parametrization and the advantage definition of process reward. No new physical or algorithmic entity is postulated. The only tunable free parameter is beta, which is set empirically. The proof itself is an exact identity once the parametrization is accepted.

free parameters (1)
  • beta (β) = 0.05
    Global reward scale and KL coefficient in the log-likelihood ratio parametrization. The text says beta = 0.05 is empirically determined (Section 4.1), and no sensitivity analysis is reported.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Outcome reward is exactly parameterized as beta log(pi_theta(y)/pi_ref(y)) for every response y.
    This is the central modeling assumption of Section 3. It fixes the form of r_theta and makes the token-level decomposition possible.
  • domain assumption The reference model pi_ref is an autoregressive distribution with full support over the token space, so the ratios and the telescoping expectation are well-defined.
    Needed in the proof of Proposition 3.1 in Appendix A for cancellations to hold. With softmax LMs the support is essentially full, but this is not guaranteed in general.
  • domain assumption Process reward should be defined as advantages q_t - q_{t-1}, following Lu et al. (2024).
    The paper adopts this definition in Section 2 without deriving it from first principles. The usefulness of the advantage-based step score is an empirical assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Free Process Rewards without Process Labels." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BNDGZ3FZ

@misc{pith2026241201981,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Free Process Rewards without Process Labels},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BNDGZ3FZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01981}
}
abstract

Different from its counterpart outcome reward models (ORMs), which evaluate the entire responses, a process reward model (PRM) scores a reasoning trajectory step by step, providing denser and more fine grained rewards. However, training a PRM requires labels annotated at every intermediate step, presenting significant challenges for both manual and automatic data collection. This paper aims to address this challenge. Both theoretically and empirically, we show that an \textit{implicit PRM} can be obtained at no additional cost, by simply training an ORM on the cheaper response-level labels. The only assumption is to parameterize the outcome reward as the log-likelihood ratios of the policy and reference models, which can be optimized regardless of the specific choice of loss objectives. In experiments, we instantiate our implicit PRMs with various objectives and evaluate their performance on MATH. We show that our implicit PRM outperforms a strong MCTS-based baseline \textit{\'a la} Math-Shepherd using less than $1/38$ of the training data. Its performance can be further improved with majority voting. We further find that scaling up instructions and responses benefits our implicit PRM, and the latter brings a larger gain. Particularly, we find that our implicit PRM, when instantiated with the cross-entropy (CE) loss, is more data-efficient and can keep improving generation models even when trained with only one response per instruction, the setup that suffers from extreme data scarcity and imbalance. Further, instructions should be relevant to downstream tasks while the diversity of responses does not bring gains. Surprisingly, training on extra Math-Shepherd step labels brings no further improvements to our implicit PRM trained on only outcome data. We hope that our work will encourage a rethinking of PRM training approaches and contribute to making training PRMs more accessible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01981 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The x-axis indicates the FLOPs required to collect the data and train the model, and y axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overhead of developing different PRMs, in terms of FLOPs during data collection and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results with majority voting. We present the averaged best-of-N accuracy across three testsets. Our implicit PRMs can be integrated with majority voting to improve the performance even further. Previously, we apply our implicit PRMs to score each response and pick the response with highest individual score as the final answer. However, when incorporating with majority voting, the scores of responses that lead to the… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Scaling instruction numbers. Our implicit PRM’s performance on Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Scaling responses number for each instruction. Our implicit PRM generally benefits from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 22 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SCOPE: Compress Mathematical Reasoning Steps for Efficient Automated Process Annotation

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    SCOPE compresses sampled math reasoning traces into a prefix tree of AST-normalized code steps, yielding PRM training labels at O(N) cost and improving Best-of-N and ProcessBench scores over automated baselines.

  2. RLVP: Penalize the Path, Reward the Outcome

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Pairing outcome rewards with verifiable per-action path penalties reduces constraint violations nearly sixfold at equal task success, while a progress potential accelerates learning only where partial progress is reachable.

  3. rePIRL: Learn PRM with Inverse RL for LLM Reasoning

    cs.LG 2026-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    rePIRL learns token-level process rewards for LLM reasoning via a guided-cost-learning-style IRL objective, and shows these rewards improve reasoning policies on math/coding benchmarks.

  4. Performative Thinking? The Brittle Correlation Between CoT Length and Problem Complexity

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A transformer trained to imitate A* produces traces whose length reflects similarity to training data, not true problem complexity, so long chain-of-thought should not be read as more 'thinking'.

  5. Know When to Explore: Difficulty-Aware Certainty as a Guide for LLM Reinforcement Learning

    cs.AI 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new RL reward-shaping method that rewards low confidence on hard problems and high confidence on easy ones improves LLM math reasoning over a GRPO baseline.

  6. GM-PRM: A Generative Multimodal Process Reward Model for Multimodal Mathematical Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A generative multimodal process reward model that produces step-level critiques and corrections improves average math accuracy for six multimodal LLMs by 2.9 to 5.9 points under a refinement-based Best-of-N strategy.

  7. Discriminative Policy Optimization for Token-Level Reward Models

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Q-RM learns token-level rewards from preference data via a discriminative policy and improves RL alignment on math, reading, and instruction-following benchmarks.

  8. UI-Genie: A Self-Improving Approach for Iteratively Boosting MLLM-based Mobile GUI Agents

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    UI-Genie uses a specialized reward model and iterative self-improvement to generate synthetic training trajectories, achieving state-of-the-art results for mobile GUI agents on AndroidControl, AndroidLab, and Android Arena.

  9. MMATH: A Multilingual Benchmark for Mathematical Reasoning

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new multilingual math benchmark shows that reasoning models often respond in the wrong language, and English-reasoning training improves both accuracy and language consistency.

  10. ProgRM: Build Better GUI Agents with Progress Rewards

    cs.AI 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ProgRM, a per-step progress reward model trained with LCS-based self-annotated labels, improves RL-trained GUI agent success rates on WikiHow relative to outcome reward models.

  11. Not All Correct Answers Are Equal: Why Your Distillation Source Matters

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A large-scale comparison of three distillation teachers shows that the choice of teacher model strongly affects student reasoning performance, with AM-Thinking-v1 distilled data leading on all tested benchmarks.

  12. PairJudge RM: Perform Best-of-N Sampling with Knockout Tournament

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A pairwise chain-of-thought judge combined with a knockout tournament outperforms score-based reward models for best-of-N sampling in math reasoning.

  13. TRACE: Turn-level Reward Assignment via Credit Estimation for Long-Horizon Agents

    cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Turn-level rewards from TD changes in a frozen reference model's gold-answer log-probability improve long-horizon search-agent RL on closed- and open-web benchmarks.

  14. Contrastive Weak-to-strong Generalization

    cs.CL 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Contrastive decoding between pre- and post-alignment weak models generates better supervision samples, improving weak-to-strong generalization on AlpacaEval2 and Arena-Hard.

  15. Self-Guided Process Reward Optimization with Redefined Step-wise Advantage for Process Reinforcement Learning

    cs.LG 2025-07 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    SPRO redefines step-level advantage by grouping cumulative policy-reference log-ratio rewards within same-step groups, reporting accuracy and efficiency gains over GRPO and PRIME.

  16. FreePRM: Training Process Reward Models Without Ground Truth Process Labels

    cs.CL 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A weakly supervised PRM training method using outcome-only pseudo-labels plus a buffer probability reaches 53.0% F1 on ProcessBench, beating supervised baselines in the paper's comparisons.

  17. Reasoning Language Models: A Blueprint

    cs.AI 2025-01 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

    A modular blueprint and open-source framework (x1) that presents existing reasoning language model designs as special cases of one unified toolbox.

  18. Multi-Layer GRPO: Enhancing Reasoning and Self-Correction in Large Language Models

    cs.LG 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    MGRPO adds a second GRPO layer trained on successful self-corrections of the model's own first answers, and reports higher math benchmark accuracy than standard GRPO.

  19. Can 1B LLM Surpass 405B LLM? Rethinking Compute-Optimal Test-Time Scaling

    cs.CL 2025-02 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Small LLMs with compute-optimal test-time scaling can outperform much larger models on math benchmarks, but the reported strategy is selected on the same test sets used for evaluation.

  20. QLASS: Boosting Language Agent Inference via Q-Guided Stepwise Search

    cs.LG 2025-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    QLASS trains a stepwise Q-value model on self-explored trajectories and uses it to guide language agents action by action, outperforming baselines on WebShop, SciWorld, and ALFWorld.

  21. ArxEval: Evaluating Retrieval and Generation in Language Models for Scientific Literature

    cs.CL 2025-01 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    ArxEval reports that 15 small language models hallucinate frequently on jumbled and mixed arXiv titles, but internal data errors and missing baselines prevent the quantitative rankings from being trusted.

  22. A Survey on Large Language Models for Mathematical Reasoning

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

    Recent advances in LLM mathematical reasoning are organized into comprehension and generation phases, covering methods from prompting to test-time scaling.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 22 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human preferences

    Mohammad Gheshlaghi Azar, Mark Rowland, Bilal Piot, Daniel Guo, Daniele Calandriello, Michal Valko, and Rémi Munos. A general theoretical paradigm to understand learning from human preferences. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, abs/2310.12036,

    arXiv

  2. [3]

    Enhancing chat language models by scaling high-quality instructional conversations

    Ning Ding, Yulin Chen, Bokai Xu, Yujia Qin, Zhi Zheng, Shengding Hu, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Bowen Zhou. Enhancing chat language models by scaling high-quality instructional conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14233,

    arXiv

  3. [4]

    Mistral 7b

    Albert Qiaochu Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de Las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, L’elio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas Wang, Timothée Lacroix, and William El Sayed. Mistral 7b. ArXiv, abs/2310.06825,

    arXiv

  4. [6]

    URL https://x.com/janleike/status/1821940180032594393? s=46. Raymond Li, Loubna Ben Allal, Yangtian Zi, Niklas Muennighoff, Denis Kocetkov, Chenghao Mou, Marc Marone, Christopher Akiki, Jia Li, Jenny Chim, Qian Liu, Evgenii Zheltonozhskii, Terry Yue Zhuo, Thomas Wang, Olivier Dehaene, Mishig Davaadorj, Joel Lamy-Poirier, João Monteiro, Oleh Shliazhko, Nic...

    work page arXiv

  5. [7]

    Skywork-reward: Bag of tricks for reward modeling in llms

    Chris Yuhao Liu, Liang Zeng, Jiacai Liu, Rui Yan, Jujie He, Chaojie Wang, Shuicheng Yan, Yang Liu, and Yahui Zhou. Skywork-reward: Bag of tricks for reward modeling in llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18451,

    arXiv

  6. [8]

    Autopsv: Automated process-supervised verifier

    Jianqiao Lu, Zhiyang Dou, Hongru Wang, Zeyu Cao, Jianbo Dai, Yingjia Wan, Yinya Huang, and Zhijiang Guo. Autopsv: Automated process-supervised verifier. ArXiv, abs/2405.16802,

    arXiv

  7. [9]

    Improve mathematical reasoning in language models by automated process supervision

    Liangchen Luo, Yinxiao Liu, Rosanne Liu, Samrat Phatale, Harsh Lara, Yunxuan Li, Lei Shu, Yun Zhu, Lei Meng, Jiao Sun, and Abhinav Rastogi. Improve mathematical reasoning in language models by automated process supervision. ArXiv, abs/2406.06592, 2024a. Ziyang Luo, Can Xu, Pu Zhao, Qingfeng Sun, Xiubo Geng, Wenxiang Hu, Chongyang Tao, Jing Ma, Qingwei Lin...

    arXiv

  8. [10]

    Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L

    URL https://github.com/meta-llama/ llama3/blob/main/MODEL_CARD.md. Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke E. Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul Francis Christiano, Jan Leike, and R...

    arXiv

Show all 15 references
  1. [11]

    Direct nash optimization: Teaching language models to self-improve with general preferences

    Corby Rosset, Ching-An Cheng, Arindam Mitra, Michael Santacroce, Ahmed Awadallah, and Tengyang Xie. Direct nash optimization: Teaching language models to self-improve with general preferences. ArXiv, abs/2404.03715,

    arXiv

  2. [12]

    Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute optimally can be more effective than scaling model parameters. ArXiv, abs/2408.03314,

    arXiv

  3. [13]

    Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Daniel M

    Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin R. Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Daniel M. Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Cantón Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jer...

    arXiv

  4. [15]

    Entropy-regularized process reward model, 2024a

    Hanning Zhang, Pengcheng Wang, Shizhe Diao, Yong Lin, Rui Pan, Hanze Dong, Dylan Zhang, Pavlo Molchanov, and Tong Zhang. Entropy-regularized process reward model, 2024a. Kaiyan Zhang, Sihang Zeng, Ermo Hua, Ning Ding, Zhang-Ren Chen, Zhiyuan Ma, Haoxin Li, Ganqu Cui, Biqing Qi...

    arXiv

  5. [2022]

    Self-play preference optimization for language model alignment

    14 Preprint Yue Wu, Zhiqing Sun, Huizhuo Yuan, Kaixuan Ji, Yiming Yang, and Quanquan Gu. Self-play preference optimization for language model alignment. ArXiv, abs/2405.00675,

    arXiv

  6. [2023]

    Smith, and Hanna Hajishirzi

    Nathan Lambert, Valentina Pyatkin, Jacob Daniel Morrison, Lester James Validad Miranda, Bill Yuchen Lin, Khyathi Raghavi Chandu, Nouha Dziri, Sachin Kumar, Tom Zick, Yejin Choi, Noah A. Smith, and Hanna Hajishirzi. Rewardbench: Evaluating reward models for language modeling. A...

    arXiv

  7. [2024]

    Noise contrastive alignment of language models with explicit rewards

    Huayu Chen, Guande He, Lifan Yuan, Ganqu Cui, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. Noise contrastive alignment of language models with explicit rewards. ArXiv, abs/2402.05369,

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.