ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06559v2
• Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2024 08:10:32 GMT
• Title: ProcessBench: Identifying Process Errors in Mathematical Reasoning
• Authors: Chujie Zheng, Zhenru Zhang, Beichen Zhang, Runji Lin, Keming Lu, Bowen Yu, Dayiheng Liu, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin,
• Abstract summary: We introduce ProcessBench for measuring the ability to identify erroneous steps in mathematical reasoning.<n>ProcessBench consists of 3,400 test cases, primarily focused on competition- and Olympiad-level math problems.<n>We conduct extensive evaluation on ProcessBench, involving two types of models: process reward models (PRMs) and critic models.
• Score: 62.80402845414901
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: As language models regularly make mistakes when solving math problems, automated identification of errors in the reasoning process becomes increasingly significant for their scalable oversight. In this paper, we introduce ProcessBench for measuring the ability to identify erroneous steps in mathematical reasoning. It consists of 3,400 test cases, primarily focused on competition- and Olympiad-level math problems. Each test case contains a step-by-step solution with error location annotated by human experts. Models are required to identify the earliest step that contains an error, or conclude that all steps are correct. We conduct extensive evaluation on ProcessBench, involving two types of models: process reward models (PRMs) and critic models, where for the latter we prompt general language models to critique each solution step by step. We draw two main observations: (1) Existing PRMs typically fail to generalize to more challenging math problems beyond GSM8K and MATH. They underperform both critic models (i.e., prompted general language models) and our own trained PRM that is straightforwardly fine-tuned on the PRM800K dataset. (2) The best open-source model, QwQ-32B-Preview, has demonstrated the critique capability competitive with the proprietary model GPT-4o, despite that it still lags behind the reasoning-specialized o1-mini. We hope ProcessBench can foster future research in reasoning process assessment, paving the way toward scalable oversight of language models.

Related papers

• THOUGHTTERMINATOR: Benchmarking, Calibrating, and Mitigating Overthinking in Reasoning Models [65.39456695678713]
  We introduce approximate measures of problem-level difficulty and demonstrate that a clear relationship between problem difficulty and optimal token spend exists. We find that in general, reasoning models are poorly calibrated, particularly on easy problems. We introduce THOUGHTTERMINATOR, a training-free black box decoding technique that significantly improves reasoning model calibration.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-17T22:16:30Z)
• FINEREASON: Evaluating and Improving LLMs' Deliberate Reasoning through Reflective Puzzle Solving [90.88021670297664]
  FINEREASON is a logic-puzzle benchmark for evaluation of large language models' reasoning capabilities. We introduce two tasks: state checking, and state transition, for a comprehensive evaluation of how models assess the current situation and plan the next move. We show that models trained on our state checking and transition data demonstrate gains in math reasoning by up to 5.1% on GSM8K.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T16:23:25Z)
• Large Language Models and Mathematical Reasoning Failures [1.6114012813668932]
  This paper investigates the mathematical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) using 50 newly constructed high-school-level word problems. We rigorously analyze both final answers and solution steps to identify reasoning failures. We find that while newer models (e.g., o3-mini, deepseek-r1) achieve higher accuracy, all models exhibit errors in spatial reasoning, strategic planning, and arithmetic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T09:07:32Z)
• Self-supervised Analogical Learning using Language Models [59.64260218737556]
  We propose SAL, a self-supervised analogical learning framework. SAL mimics the human analogy process and trains models to explicitly transfer high-quality symbolic solutions. We show that the resulting models outperform base language models on a wide range of reasoning benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T02:31:26Z)
• PRMBench: A Fine-grained and Challenging Benchmark for Process-Level Reward Models [28.74956741932006]
  We introduce PRMBench, a process-level benchmark to assess the fine-grained error detection capabilities of PRMs. PRMBench comprises 6,216 carefully designed problems and 83,456 step-level labels, evaluating models across multiple dimensions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-06T16:31:45Z)
• Do NOT Think That Much for 2+3=? On the Overthinking of o1-Like LLMs [76.43407125275202]
  o1-like models can emulate human-like long-time thinking during inference. This paper presents the first comprehensive study on the prevalent issue of overthinking in these models. We propose strategies to mitigate overthinking, streamlining reasoning processes without compromising accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-30T18:55:12Z)
• Enhancing LLM Reasoning via Critique Models with Test-Time and Training-Time Supervision [120.40788744292739]
  We propose a two-player paradigm that separates the roles of reasoning and critique models. We first propose AutoMathCritique, an automated and scalable framework for collecting critique data. We demonstrate that the critique models consistently improve the actor's performance on difficult queries at test-time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T17:11:54Z)
• SuperCorrect: Supervising and Correcting Language Models with Error-Driven Insights [89.56181323849512]
  We propose SuperCorrect, a framework that uses a large teacher model to supervise and correct both the reasoning and reflection processes of a smaller student model. In the first stage, we extract hierarchical high-level and detailed thought templates from the teacher model to guide the student model in eliciting more fine-grained reasoning thoughts. In the second stage, we introduce cross-model collaborative direct preference optimization (DPO) to enhance the self-correction abilities of the student model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T17:25:52Z)
• Reasoning Paths Optimization: Learning to Reason and Explore From Diverse Paths [69.39559168050923]
  We introduce Reasoning Paths Optimization (RPO), which enables learning to reason and explore from diverse paths. Our approach encourages favorable branches at each reasoning step while penalizing unfavorable ones, enhancing the model's overall problem-solving performance. We focus on multi-step reasoning tasks, such as math word problems and science-based exam questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T06:37:25Z)
• AlphaMath Almost Zero: Process Supervision without Process [6.318873143509028]
  We propose an innovative framework, AlphaMath, that bypasses the need for process annotations by leveraging Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) This framework focuses on unleashing the potential of a well-pretrained LLM to autonomously enhance its mathematical reasoning. The experimental results on both in-domain and out-of-domain datasets demonstrate that even without GPT-4 or human-annotated process supervision, our AlphaMath framework achieves comparable or superior results to previous state-of-the-art methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-06T15:20:30Z)
• Evaluating Mathematical Reasoning Beyond Accuracy [50.09931172314218]
  We introduce ReasonEval, a new methodology for evaluating the quality of reasoning steps. We show that ReasonEval achieves state-of-the-art performance on human-labeled datasets. We observe that ReasonEval can play a significant role in data selection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T17:18:04Z)
• GRACE: Discriminator-Guided Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [75.35436025709049]
  We propose Guiding chain-of-thought ReAsoning with a CorrectnEss Discriminator (GRACE) to steer the decoding process towards producing correct reasoning steps. GRACE employs a discriminator trained with a contrastive loss over correct and incorrect steps, which is used during decoding to score next-step candidates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T09:16:51Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.