SPC: Evolving Self-Play Critic via Adversarial Games for LLM Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.19162v2
• Date: Sat, 17 May 2025 14:32:38 GMT
• Title: SPC: Evolving Self-Play Critic via Adversarial Games for LLM Reasoning
• Authors: Jiaqi Chen, Bang Zhang, Ruotian Ma, Peisong Wang, Xiaodan Liang, Zhaopeng Tu, Xiaolong Li, Kwan-Yee K. Wong,
• Abstract summary: Self-Play Critic (SPC) is a novel approach where a critic model evolves its ability to assess reasoning steps through adversarial self-play games.<n>SPC involves fine-tuning two copies of a base model to play two roles, namely a "sneaky generator" and a "critic"
• Score: 99.645427839457
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Evaluating the step-by-step reliability of large language model (LLM) reasoning, such as Chain-of-Thought, remains challenging due to the difficulty and cost of obtaining high-quality step-level supervision. In this paper, we introduce Self-Play Critic (SPC), a novel approach where a critic model evolves its ability to assess reasoning steps through adversarial self-play games, eliminating the need for manual step-level annotation. SPC involves fine-tuning two copies of a base model to play two roles, namely a "sneaky generator" that deliberately produces erroneous steps designed to be difficult to detect, and a "critic" that analyzes the correctness of reasoning steps. These two models engage in an adversarial game in which the generator aims to fool the critic, while the critic model seeks to identify the generator's errors. Using reinforcement learning based on the game outcomes, the models iteratively improve; the winner of each confrontation receives a positive reward and the loser receives a negative reward, driving continuous self-evolution. Experiments on three reasoning process benchmarks (ProcessBench, PRM800K, DeltaBench) demonstrate that our SPC progressively enhances its error detection capabilities (e.g., accuracy increases from 70.8% to 77.7% on ProcessBench) and surpasses strong baselines, including distilled R1 model. Furthermore, SPC can guide the test-time search of diverse LLMs and significantly improve their mathematical reasoning performance on MATH500 and AIME2024, surpassing those guided by state-of-the-art process reward models.

Related papers

• RefCritic: Training Long Chain-of-Thought Critic Models with Refinement Feedback [57.967762383794806]
  RefCritic is a long-chain-of-thought critic module based on reinforcement learning with dual rule-based rewards.<n>We evaluate RefCritic on Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B across five benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-20T16:19:51Z)
• SPIRAL: Self-Play on Zero-Sum Games Incentivizes Reasoning via Multi-Agent Multi-Turn Reinforcement Learning [27.20778530252474]
  SPIRAL is a self-play framework where models learn by playing multi-turn, zero-sum games against continuously improving versions of themselves.<n>Using SPIRAL, self-play on zero-sum games produces reasoning capabilities that transfer broadly.<n>Analysis reveals that this transfer occurs through three cognitive patterns: systematic decomposition, expected value calculation, and case-by-case analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T17:58:13Z)
• Reasoning Models Are More Easily Gaslighted Than You Think [85.84943447589511]
  We evaluate three state-of-the-art reasoning models, including OpenAI's o4-mini, Claude-3.7-Sonnet and Gemini-2.5-Flash.<n>Our evaluation reveals significant accuracy drops following gaslighting negation prompts.<n>We introduce GaslightingBench-R, a new diagnostic benchmark designed to evaluate reasoning models' susceptibility to defend their belief.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-11T12:52:25Z)
• Boosting LLM Reasoning via Spontaneous Self-Correction [43.4980625253775]
  One of the approaches for improving math reasoning is self-correction.<n>Existing self-correction approaches treat corrections as standalone post-generation refinements.<n>We propose SPOC, a spontaneous self-correction approach that enables LLMs to generate interleaved solutions and verifications in a single inference pass.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-07T21:23:00Z)
• T2I-Eval-R1: Reinforcement Learning-Driven Reasoning for Interpretable Text-to-Image Evaluation [60.620408007636016]
  We propose T2I-Eval-R1, a novel reinforcement learning framework that trains open-source MLLMs using only coarse-grained quality scores.<n>Our approach integrates Group Relative Policy Optimization into the instruction-tuning process, enabling models to generate both scalar scores and interpretable reasoning chains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-23T13:44:59Z)
• R-PRM: Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling [53.06844294668382]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a promising solution by evaluating each reasoning step. Existing PRMs typically output evaluation scores directly, limiting both learning efficiency and evaluation accuracy. We propose Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling (R-PRM) R-PRM generates seed data from limited annotations, effectively bootstrapping our model's reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T09:23:08Z)
• Iterative Deepening Sampling for Large Language Models [27.807695570974644]
  Training models to achieve effective self-correction and self-correction remains a significant challenge.<n>We propose a novel iterative sampling algorithm framework designed to enhance self-correction and generate higher-quality samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-08T04:39:51Z)
• 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)
• Self-Generated Critiques Boost Reward Modeling for Language Models [57.60881438647227]
  Critic-RM is a framework that improves reward models using self-generated critiques without extra supervision.<n> Experiments show that Critic-RM improves reward modeling accuracy by 3.7%-7.3% compared to standard reward models and LLM judges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-25T18:28:26Z)
• 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)
• Self-rationalization improves LLM as a fine-grained judge [21.917301609125417]
  We introduce Self-Rationalization, an iterative process of improving the rationales for the judge models. Self-rationalization works by having the model generate multiple judgments with rationales for the same input. We show that our model learns to produce higher quality rationales, with a win rate of $62%$ on average compared to models just trained via SFT on rationale.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T21:05:53Z)
• Self-Taught Evaluators [77.92610887220594]
  We present an approach that aims to im-proves without human annotations, using synthetic training data only. Our Self-Taught Evaluator can improve a strong LLM from 75.4 to 88.3 on RewardBench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-05T17:57:02Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)

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.