Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

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

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Process rewards for LLM reasoning can be read off the policy model itself, with no extra reward model, and SPRO shows this beats outcome-only and PRM-based baselines.

desk verdict A clean PRM-free process-RL idea with a weak theoretical bridge and experiments that currently cannot be read as evidence for the mechanism. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01551 v2 pith:H2Q4RL7C submitted 2025-07-02 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL

Wu Fei , Hao Kong , Shuxian Liang , Yang Lin , Yibo Yang , Jing Tang , Lei Chen , Xiansheng Hua This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL
keywords processreinforcementlearningtoken-levelMDPimplicitrewardstep-wiseadvantagegrouprelativepolicyoptimizationreasoninglanguagemodelshackingentropycollapse
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

The paper seeks to establish that token-level process rewards for LLM reinforcement learning do not require a separate reward model: the policy's own log-probability ratio against a frozen reference model can supply the credit signal. To use that signal, SPRO defines Cumulative Process Rewards (CPR) and Masked Step Advantage (MSA), which estimate step-level advantages by comparing, at each timestep, only responses that actually share that step in a shared-prompt group. On math and code benchmarks, SPRO reports 17.5% higher test accuracy than vanilla GRPO at 3.4x lower training cost, and 8.3% higher accuracy than PRIME, while cutting average response length by roughly a third. A sympathetic reading of the paper is that process-level credit assignment in LLM RL can be made as cheap and scalable as outcome-supervised RL.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the Cumulative Process Reward (CPR) and Masked Step Advantage (MSA). CPR is the telescoped sum R_t=V(s_0)+Σ_{j=0}^t β log(π_θ(a_j|s_j)/π_ref(a_j|s_j)), which turns the token-level log-ratio reward into a cumulative return estimate that starts from the same initial state for every response. MSA is the per-step group-relative baseline MSA_{i,t}=R_{i,t}-masked_mean({R_{i,t}}), computed only over responses with a valid token at step t, which removes length bias and gives a step-level advantage comparable within shared-prompt groups. The identity derived from the maximum-entropy RL fixed point is what lets the policy itself replace a separate reward model.

What would settle it

Measure, on held-out prompts from the same benchmarks, the correlation between SPRO's per-token cumulative log-ratio reward and oracle step-level correctness, for instance a verifier's score for the partial solution. If the correlation is near zero or negative while the reported accuracy gains persist, the process reward is not doing task-level credit assignment.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the token-level MDP, the optimal policy and the reward function are linked by the identity r(s_t,a_t)+V(s_{t+1})-V(s_t)=β log(π_θ(a_t|s_t)/π_ref(a_t|s_t)), so the log-ratio of the current policy to a frozen reference model is itself a process reward. Summing this identity over a prefix telescopes the value terms and defines the Cumulative Process Reward R_t, which the paper treats as an estimate of the expected return at step t. Masked Step Advantage then subtracts, for each step t, the mean cumulative reward over all responses in the same prompt group that actually contain step t, giving a per-step group-relative baseline that does not reward longer responses. SPRO combines this MSA term with the GRPO outcome advantage and optimizes the policy with a clipped PPO-style objective. The paper reports that this self-guided process reward, without any additional reward model, improves accuracy and efficiency over both outcome-only GRPO and the PRM-based PRIME baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the current model's confidence shift relative to its original version reflects true step quality, rather than just drift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Process-aware RL can run with the same two-model memory footprint as GRPO, since no third reward model is loaded or updated.
  • Step-level comparisons inside a prompt group can be normalized per timestep rather than over whole trajectories, removing length bias from advantage estimates.
  • The policy's own improving log-ratio makes credit assignment dynamically sharper as training progresses, coupling reward accuracy with policy quality.
  • Shorter rollouts reduce per-step GPU cost, so the efficiency gain grows further under longer reasoning budgets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the log-ratio is only weakly task-correlated, much of SPRO's gain could come from the per-step normalization acting as an entropy regularizer; an ablation that replaces the ratio with a task-independent random score would separate these effects.
  • The same masked per-step grouping could be exported to other group-relative objectives, not just GRPO, whenever token-level rewards are available.
  • The claim implies a testable scaling prediction: as base models get stronger, self-guided process rewards should improve in quality for free, which could be checked by running SPRO on a larger base model.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SPRO, a process-reinforcement-learning algorithm that claims to derive token-level process rewards intrinsically from the policy model itself, eliminating the need for a separate process reward model (PRM). The method defines a Cumulative Process Reward (CPR) as a cumulative sum of β log(πθ/πref) and a Masked Step Advantage (MSA) obtained by group-mean-centering CPR within shared-prompt groups at each timestep. SPRO combines MSA with the outcome-reward advantage of GRPO in Eq. (13) and is evaluated on math and code benchmarks against GRPO and PRIME. The paper reports higher accuracy, higher training efficiency, shorter response lengths, and more stable policy entropy than the baselines. The theoretical justification rests on Proposition 1, which states that any LLM is an optimal soft Q-function for some implicit reward and that stronger downstream task performance implies more accurate credit assignment.

Significance. If validated, the framework would be practically significant: it promises PRM-free process-level credit assignment with the same memory footprint as outcome-supervised RL, which is attractive for industrial deployment. The empirical results on a 7B model across several math and code benchmarks are suggestive, and the paper identifies a real cost bottleneck in current process-RL methods. However, the central claim is not currently supported. The process reward is a self-referential likelihood ratio whose connection to task correctness is asserted rather than demonstrated. Moreover, the experimental section contains an unresolved inconsistency about the value of β, the scale of the process reward, and the reported headline improvements do not match the numbers in Table 1. These issues are load-bearing: they determine whether the method is meaningfully different from GRPO and whether the process-reward component contributes at all. The paper would need substantial additional theory or ablations to establish the core claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 and Eqs. (11)-(13)] The hyperparameter description states 'The KL coefficient is set to 0', yet the process reward in Eqs. (11)-(12) is defined as β log(πθ(at|st)/πref(at|st)). If β is the same KL coefficient, then MSA is identically zero and the SPRO advantage in Eq. (13) reduces to the GRPO outcome term, making the claimed process-reward mechanism vacuous. If β is a separate temperature parameter, its value is never reported, so the magnitude of the process signal is unknown. This must be clarified and the actual β value reported to allow any attribution of the results to the proposed process reward.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Proposition 1] The proof of Proposition 1 constructs an implicit reward by taking Q as a scaled logit and defining V from the partition function, which shows only that any policy is optimal for its own implicit reward. It does not establish that β log(πθ/πref) is a valid credit-assignment signal for the task, nor does it justify the second sentence of Proposition 1, 'LLMs with stronger downstream task performance provide more accurate credit assignment.' This is an assertion, not a consequence of the construction. The paper provides no experiment linking the proposed process reward to ground-truth step quality (e.g., correlation with human or verifier step labels), so the central claim that SPRO derives meaningful process rewards from the policy itself is unsupported.
  3. [Table 1 and Sec. 4.2] The abstract and Fig. 1 report a '17.5% test accuracy improvement' over GRPO and '8.3% higher' than PRIME, but the average accuracies in Table 1 (SPRO 38.4 vs GRPO 33.5 and PRIME 36.0) correspond to relative improvements of approximately 14.6% and 6.7%, respectively. The basis for the headline numbers is not stated. Please specify the exact calculation, checkpoint, and benchmark set used for these percentages, since as written the claims are inconsistent with the reported table.
  4. [Sec. 4.1, accuracy filter] The setup applies an 'accuracy filtering threshold between 0.2 and 0.8' that prioritizes prompts based on base-model accuracy. It is not stated whether this filter is applied identically to all baselines (GRPO and PRIME) or only to SPRO. If the filter is exclusive to SPRO, the comparisons are confounded; if it is applied to all, the paper should include an ablation without the filter to demonstrate that the reported gains come from MSA rather than from the changed training prompt distribution. Without this information, the empirical improvement cannot be attributed to the process-reward mechanism.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains a typo: 'vaniila' should be 'vanilla'.
  2. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (1)] The symbol β is used both for the KL penalty and the entropy coefficient in Eq. (1), and again in Eqs. (11)-(12) for the process reward scale. Please clarify the relationship between these usages, especially given the hyperparameter statement that the KL coefficient is 0.
  3. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (12)] The notation Ṟ_{i,t} is used in Eq. (12) but is not defined before its first appearance. Define it explicitly as the cumulative sum of β log(πθ/πref) up to step t.
  4. [Sec. 4.1 and Table 1] The text lists five evaluation benchmarks (AMC, MATH-500, Olympiad-Bench, CodeForces, CodeContests), but Table 1 contains six columns: AMC, MATH, Olympiad, K12, CodeForces, and CodeContests. Please resolve this discrepancy, e.g., by adding K12 to the benchmark list or removing it from the table.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says '6.7x Efficient' while the abstract and main text report 3.4× efficiency for SPRO over GRPO. The efficiency claim should state the baseline and be consistent across the abstract, text, and figures.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Proposition 1 is a tautology: the CPR/MSA process reward in Eqs. (8)-(12) is defined as the optimizing policy's own log-likelihood ratio, so the claimed process-level credit assignment is self-referential; only the outcome-reward term in Eq. (13) is external.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3.1, Proposition 1 (Eq. 7)]
    "Proposition 1. Any LLM is always the optimal soft Q-functions for some reward functions in the token-level MDP [13], thus enabling token-level credit assignment. In particular, LLMs with stronger downstream task performance provide more accurate credit assignment. ... We define Q-function as a scaled version of the logits: Q(st, at) =βℓ(at|st). ... π(at|st) = softmax(ℓ(at|st)) = ... = e(Q(st,at)−V (st))/β."

    The 'optimality' is constructed from the policy's own logits: any softmax policy trivially satisfies π=e^{(Q−V)/β} when Q is defined as βℓ. Thus the first sentence is an identity, not a theorem about task correctness. The second sentence is an unproved assertion that supplies the entire bridge from log-ratio to credit assignment; without it, 'any LLM is optimal' cannot justify using β log(πθ/πref) as a process reward.

  2. self definitional [Sec. 3.2, Eqs. (8), (11), (12)]
    "Given a policy model πθ during training iterations (we omit the iteration subscript for convenience), Proposition 1 establishes that there always exists an implict reward function r(st,at) together with corresponding Q(st,at) and V (st) functions. By virtue of the optimality of the Q-function, these functions also satisfy the equality relation in Eq.(6) as follows: r(st,at) +V (st+1) − V (st) =β log πθ(at|st)/πref(at|st)."

    Eq. (8) substitutes the policy being optimized, πθ, in place of π∗ in Eq. (6); by Proposition 1 that substitution is only an equality by construction. Eq. (11) then defines CPR as V(s0) plus the cumulative log-likelihood ratio of πθ to πref, and Eq. (12) defines MSA as the mean-centered version of that same quantity. Since πθ is exactly the model updated by J_SPRO in Eq. (14), the MSA term rewards the policy for increasing its own relative likelihood and contains no independent step-quality information. The only external signal in the combined advantage Eq. (13) is the outcome-reward term; hence the claimed process-level advantage reduces by construction to a self-likelihood objective.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Sec. 3.1, 'The Process Rewards Could Be Self-Guided']
    "Obviously, the accuracy of r(st, at) directly depends on the quality of the optimal policy. Since the policy model is trained to directly approximate π∗, the near-optimal solution πθT inherently provides more accurate rewards than a PRM πφ trained separately. Otherwise, the policy model itself would be inferior, contradicting its optimality hypothesis."

    This asserts that the trained policy πθT is near-optimal, which is exactly the conclusion the RL procedure is supposed to establish; using that assumption to justify the reward source is circular. The appeal to an 'optimality hypothesis' does not break the loop because the hypothesis is the claim being tested.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is internally consistent, but its central premise is self-referential. Proposition 1 constructs Q from the policy logits, so 'any LLM is optimal for some reward' is a softmax identity; it does not establish that the log-ratio signal tracks step-level task correctness. The CPR/MSA reward in Eqs. (11)-(12) is defined as the cumulative log-likelihood ratio of the very policy being trained, and MSA mean-centers that same quantity; therefore the 'self-guided process reward' is, by construction, a function of the optimizer itself rather than an independent credit-assignment signal. The outcome-reward term in Eq. (13) and the external benchmark evaluations (MATH, CodeForces, etc.) are not circular, which is why the score is moderate rather than extreme. No load-bearing self-citation is present; the cited DPO/implicit-reward results [13]-[15] are prior external work. The circularity is in substituting the in-training policy into an optimal-policy identity and then treating the resulting self-likelihood as validated process credit assignment.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on prior DPO/token-level MDP theory, plus a new unproven assertion that policy strength implies credit assignment quality. The main free parameters are the unreported process reward scale, the entropy coefficient, and the accuracy filter thresholds. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • beta (process reward scale) = not reported; KL coefficient set to 0 in Sec. 4.1
    Scales the cumulative log-ratio that defines MSA in Eqs. (11)-(13). If beta is 0 the process signal vanishes; if nonzero its value is not specified.
  • entropy coefficient = 0.001
    Added entropy bonus used in all experiments; may account for the reported entropy stability and exploration if the process term is inactive.
  • accuracy filter thresholds = 0.2 to 0.8
    Prompts outside this accuracy range are filtered in Algorithm 1, creating a data selection step that can bias the comparison with baselines.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Token-level MDP formulation and the Bellman equation from Rafailov et al.
    Borrowed unchanged from prior work; the paper assumes the token-level MDP and the soft Bellman equation in Eq. (4).
  • standard math There is a bijection between reward functions and optimal Q-functions in the token-level MDP.
    Used to justify Eq. (6), following Rafailov et al.; assumed as a theorem from the cited paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Any LLM is an optimal soft Q-function for some reward, and stronger downstream task performance implies more accurate credit assignment.
    Proposition 1 proves the first part tautologically but the second part is asserted without proof and is load-bearing for the self-guided reward claim.
  • domain assumption Masked attention hidden states encode the complete prefix, so cumulative process rewards are the right signal.
    Used in Sec. 3.2 to motivate Cumulative Process Reward; a heuristic analogy to probing studies, not a formal equivalence.
  • domain assumption Grouping by absolute step index and using masked mean yields unbiased step-level advantage estimates.
    Assumed throughout MSA; variable response lengths and different semantic positions at the same token index may bias the comparison.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Self-Guided Process Reward Optimization with Redefined Step-wise Advantage for Process Reinforcement Learning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H2Q4RL7C

@misc{pith2026250701551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Self-Guided Process Reward Optimization with Redefined Step-wise Advantage for Process Reinforcement Learning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H2Q4RL7C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01551}
}
abstract

Process Reinforcement Learning~(PRL) has demonstrated considerable potential in enhancing the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models~(LLMs). However, introducing additional process reward models incurs substantial computational overhead, and there is no unified theoretical framework for process-level advantage estimation. To bridge this gap, we propose \textbf{S}elf-Guided \textbf{P}rocess \textbf{R}eward \textbf{O}ptimization~(\textbf{SPRO}), a novel framework that enables process-aware RL through two key innovations: (1) we first theoretically demonstrate that process rewards can be derived intrinsically from the policy model itself, and (2) we introduce well-defined cumulative process rewards and \textbf{M}asked \textbf{S}tep \textbf{A}dvantage (\textbf{MSA}), which facilitates rigorous step-wise action advantage estimation within shared-prompt sampling groups. Our experimental results demonstrate that SPRO outperforms vaniila GRPO with 3.4x higher training efficiency and a 17.5\% test accuracy improvement. Furthermore, SPRO maintains a stable and elevated policy entropy throughout training while reducing the average response length by approximately $1/3$, evidencing sufficient exploration and prevention of reward hacking. Notably, SPRO incurs no additional computational overhead compared to outcome-supervised RL methods such as GRPO, which benefit industrial implementation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01551 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Performance comparison on math and code benchmarks up to 432 steps. SPRO outperforms outcome-supervised GRPO with 3.4× higher training efficiency and a 17.5% test accuracy improvement. Notably, SPRO reduces per-step computation time owing to its shorter trajectories. 1This work was conducted during the first author’s internship at TERMINUS Group. Please contact us at fwu750@connect.hkust-gz.edu.cn, kong.hao@tslsmart… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a): GRPO treats all terminal states as one-step transitions from the initial prompt state. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of Masked Step Advantage. Assume that four responses are sampled for each prompt. At each step t, we calculate cumulative rewards and further compute the step-level advantages within the vertical valid masked groups, excluding empty step units from all calculations. 3.2 REDEFINE STEP-WISE ADVANTAGE In the previous section, we propose that the process reward can be self-guided by the policy model. In thi… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Performance of SPRO on math and code benchmarks with respect to GPU hours and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effective process reinforcement learning enables efficient reasoning traces and exploration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Unleashing Implicit Rewards: Prefix-Value Learning for Distribution-Level Optimization

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Learning prefix-conditioned success probabilities from outcome labels yields more reliable process rewards than sequence log-ratio PRMs and improves RL when used for candidate-token TD updates.

  2. Reward Modeling for Reinforcement Learning-Based LLM Reasoning: Design, Challenges, and Evaluation

    cs.LG 2026-02 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A taxonomy-driven survey arguing that reward design is the central mechanism shaping reliable LLM reasoning, with maps of reward paradigms, reward-hacking failure modes, and benchmark pitfalls.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Learning to reason with LLMs

    OpenAI. Learning to reason with LLMs. https://openai.com/index/ learning-to-reason-with-llms/ , 2024. Accessed: 15 March 2025

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12948, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, Y Wu, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Kimi Team, Angang Du, Bofei Gao, Bowei Xing, Changjiu Jiang, Cheng Chen, Cheng Li, Chenjun Xiao, Chenzhuang Du, Chonghua Liao, et al. Kimi k1. 5: Scaling reinforcement learning with llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12599, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Back to basics: Revisiting reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms

    Arash Ahmadian, Chris Cremer, Matthias Gallé, Marzieh Fadaee, Julia Kreutzer, Olivier Pietquin, Ahmet Üstün, and Sara Hooker. Back to basics: Revisiting reinforce style optimization for learning from human feedback in llms. CoRR, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    A survey of efficient reasoning for large reasoning models: Language, multimodality, and beyond

    Xiaoye Qu, Yafu Li, Zhaochen Su, Weigao Sun, Jianhao Yan, Dongrui Liu, Ganqu Cui, Daizong Liu, Shuxian Liang, Junxian He, et al. A survey of efficient reasoning for large reasoning models: Language, multimodality, and beyond. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21614, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    The entropy mechanism of reinforcement learning for reasoning language models

    Ganqu Cui, Yuchen Zhang, Jiacheng Chen, Lifan Yuan, Zhi Wang, Yuxin Zuo, Haozhan Li, Yuchen Fan, Huayu Chen, Weize Chen, et al. The entropy mechanism of reinforcement learning for reasoning language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.22617, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Let’s verify step by step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yuri Burda, Harrison Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

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

    Charlie Snell, Jaehoon Lee, Kelvin Xu, and Aviral Kumar. Scaling llm test-time compute opti- mally can be more effective than scaling model parameters. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03314, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Alphazero- like tree-search can guide large language model decoding and training

    Xidong Feng, Ziyu Wan, Muning Wen, Ying Wen, Weinan Zhang, and Jun Wang. Alphazero- like tree-search can guide large language model decoding and training. In NeurIPS 2023 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations

    Peiyi Wang, Lei Li, Zhihong Shao, Runxin Xu, Damai Dai, Yifei Li, Deli Chen, Yu Wu, and Zhifang Sui. Math-shepherd: Verify and reinforce llms step-by-step without human annotations. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Solving math word problems with process-and outcome-based feedback

    Jonathan Uesato, Nate Kushman, Ramana Kumar, Francis Song, Noah Siegel, Lisa Wang, Antonia Creswell, Geoffrey Irving, and Irina Higgins. Solving math word problems with process-and outcome-based feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.14275, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    From r to Q∗: Your language model is secretly a q-function

    Rafael Rafailov, Joey Hejna, Ryan Park, and Chelsea Finn. From r to Q∗: Your language model is secretly a q-function. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Free process rewards without process labels

    Lifan Yuan, Wendi Li, Huayu Chen, Ganqu Cui, Ning Ding, Kaiyan Zhang, Bowen Zhou, Zhiyuan Liu, and Hao Peng. Free process rewards without process labels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01981, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Process reinforcement through implicit rewards

    Ganqu Cui, Lifan Yuan, Zefan Wang, Hanbin Wang, Wendi Li, Bingxiang He, Yuchen Fan, Tianyu Yu, Qixin Xu, Weize Chen, et al. Process reinforcement through implicit rewards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.01456, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Understanding r1-zero-like training: A critical perspective

    Zichen Liu, Changyu Chen, Wenjun Li, Penghui Qi, Tianyu Pang, Chao Du, Wee Sun Lee, and Min Lin. Understanding r1-zero-like training: A critical perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20783, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Function optimization using connectionist reinforcement learning algorithms

    Ronald J Williams and Jing Peng. Function optimization using connectionist reinforcement learning algorithms. Connection Science, 3(3):241–268, 1991

    1991

  10. [18]

    Modeling purposeful adaptive behavior with the principle of maximum causal entropy

    Brian D Ziebart. Modeling purposeful adaptive behavior with the principle of maximum causal entropy. Carnegie Mellon University, 2010. 11 Preprint

    2010

  11. [19]

    Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:2773...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Iq-learn: Inverse soft-q learning for imitation

    Divyansh Garg, Shuvam Chakraborty, Chris Cundy, Jiaming Song, and Stefano Ermon. Iq-learn: Inverse soft-q learning for imitation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 34:4028–4039, 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Contrastive preference learning: Learning from human feedback without reinforcement learning

    Joey Hejna, Rafael Rafailov, Harshit Sikchi, Chelsea Finn, Scott Niekum, W Bradley Knox, and Dorsa Sadigh. Contrastive preference learning: Learning from human feedback without reinforcement learning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    Bridging the gap between value and policy based reinforcement learning

    Ofir Nachum, Mohammad Norouzi, Kelvin Xu, and Dale Schuurmans. Bridging the gap between value and policy based reinforcement learning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Coherent soft imitation learning

    Joe Watson, Sandy Huang, and Nicolas Heess. Coherent soft imitation learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:14540–14583, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Attention is all you need

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  17. [25]

    Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances

    Yonatan Belinkov. Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances. Computational Linguistics, 48(1):207–219, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Inspecting the concept knowledge graph encoded by modern language models

    Carlos Aspillaga, Marcelo Mendoza, and Álvaro Soto. Inspecting the concept knowledge graph encoded by modern language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 2984–3000, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic properties

    Alexis Conneau, Germán Kruszewski, Guillaume Lample, Loïc Barrault, and Marco Baroni. What you can cram into a single vector: Probing sentence embeddings for linguistic properties. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volu...

    2018

  20. [28]

    Knowledge neurons in pretrained transformers

    Damai Dai, Li Dong, Yaru Hao, Zhifang Sui, Baobao Chang, and Furu Wei. Knowledge neurons in pretrained transformers. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 8493–8502, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories

    Mor Geva, Roei Schuster, Jonathan Berant, and Omer Levy. Transformer feed-forward layers are key-value memories. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5484–5495, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Physics of language models: part 3.1, knowledge storage and extraction

    Zeyuan Allen-Zhu and Yuanzhi Li. Physics of language models: part 3.1, knowledge storage and extraction. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 1067–1077, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforce- ment learning

    Ronald J Williams. Simple statistical gradient-following algorithms for connectionist reinforce- ment learning. Machine learning, 8:229–256, 1992

    1992

  24. [32]

    Qwen2.5 technical report, 2025

    Qwen, :, An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, ...

    2025

  25. [33]

    Numinamath: The largest public dataset in ai4maths with 860k pairs of competition math problems and solutions.Hugging Face repository, 13:9, 2024

    Jia Li, Edward Beeching, Lewis Tunstall, Ben Lipkin, Roman Soletskyi, Shengyi Huang, Kashif Rasul, Longhui Yu, Albert Q Jiang, Ziju Shen, et al. Numinamath: The largest public dataset in ai4maths with 860k pairs of competition math problems and solutions.Hugging Face repositor...

    2024

  26. [34]

    Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset, 2021

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Saurav Kadavath, Akul Arora, Steven Basart, Eric Tang, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. Measuring mathematical problem solving with the math dataset, 2021. 12 Preprint

    2021

  27. [35]

    Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems

    Chaoqun He, Renjie Luo, Yuzhuo Bai, Shengding Hu, Zhen Thai, Junhao Shen, Jinyi Hu, Xu Han, Yujie Huang, Yuxiang Zhang, et al. Olympiadbench: A challenging benchmark for promoting agi with olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific problems. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annu...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Codeelo: Benchmarking competition-level code generation of llms with human-comparable elo ratings

    Shanghaoran Quan, Jiaxi Yang, Bowen Yu, Bo Zheng, Dayiheng Liu, An Yang, Xuancheng Ren, Bofei Gao, Yibo Miao, Yunlong Feng, et al. Codeelo: Benchmarking competition-level code generation of llms with human-comparable elo ratings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01257, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Competition-level code generation with alphacode

    Yujia Li, David Choi, Junyoung Chung, Nate Kushman, Julian Schrittwieser, Rémi Leblond, Tom Eccles, James Keeling, Felix Gimeno, Agustin Dal Lago, et al. Competition-level code generation with alphacode. Science, 378(6624):1092–1097, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework

    Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework. In Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems, pages 1279–1297, 2025

    2025

  31. [39]

    T\" ulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training

    Nathan Lambert, Jacob Morrison, Valentina Pyatkin, Shengyi Huang, Hamish Ivison, Faeze Brahman, Lester James V Miranda, Alisa Liu, Nouha Dziri, Shane Lyu, et al. T\" ulu 3: Pushing frontiers in open language model post-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15124, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale

    Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, Yu Yue, Tiantian Fan, Gaohong Liu, Lingjun Liu, Xin Liu, et al. Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale. CoRR, 2025. 13

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.