Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoning
<|reference_start|>Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoning: A promising approach for improving reasoning in large language models is to use process reward models (PRMs). PRMs provide feedback at each step of a multi-step reasoning trace, potentially improving credit assignment over outcome reward models (ORMs) that only provide feedback at the final step. However, collecting dense, per-step human labels is not scalable, and training PRMs from automatically-labeled data has thus far led to limited gains. To improve a base policy by running search against a PRM or using it as dense rewards for reinforcement learning (RL), we ask: "How should we design process rewards?". Our key insight is that, to be effective, the process reward for a step should measure progress: a change in the likelihood of producing a correct response in the future, before and after taking the step, corresponding to the notion of step-level advantages in RL. Crucially, this progress should be measured under a prover policy distinct from the base policy. We theoretically characterize the set of good provers and our results show that optimizing process rewards from such provers improves exploration during test-time search and online RL. In fact, our characterization shows that weak prover policies can substantially improve a stronger base policy, which we also observe empirically. We validate our claims by training process advantage verifiers (PAVs) to predict progress under such provers, and show that compared to ORMs, test-time search against PAVs is $>8\%$ more accurate, and $1.5-5\times$ more compute-efficient. Online RL with dense rewards from PAVs enables one of the first results with $5-6\times$ gain in sample efficiency, and $>6\%$ gain in accuracy, over ORMs.<|reference_end|>
@article{setlur2024rewarding,
    title={Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM
  Reasoning},
    author={Amrith Setlur, Chirag Nagpal, Adam Fisch, Xinyang Geng, Jacob
  Eisenstein, Rishabh Agarwal, Alekh Agarwal, Jonathan Berant, Aviral Kumar},
    journal={arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.08146},
    year={2024},
    archivePrefix={arXiv},
    eprint={2410.08146},
    primaryClass={cs.LG cs.CL}
}