Is PRM Necessary? Problem-Solving RL Implicitly Induces PRM Capability in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11227v1
• Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 13:23:26 GMT
• Title: Is PRM Necessary? Problem-Solving RL Implicitly Induces PRM Capability in LLMs
• Authors: Zhangying Feng, Qianglong Chen, Ning Lu, Yongqian Li, Siqi Cheng, Shuangmu Peng, Duyu Tang, Shengcai Liu, Zhirui Zhang,
• Abstract summary: We conduct a systematic investigation of the relationship between RL training and PRM capabilities.<n>Our findings demonstrate that problem-solving proficiency and process supervision capabilities represent complementary dimensions of reasoning.<n>We propose Self-PRM, an introspective framework in which models autonomously evaluate and rerank their generated solutions.
• Score: 26.49278448640309
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The development of reasoning capabilities represents a critical frontier in large language models (LLMs) research, where reinforcement learning (RL) and process reward models (PRMs) have emerged as predominant methodological frameworks. Contrary to conventional wisdom, empirical evidence from DeepSeek-R1 demonstrates that pure RL training focused on mathematical problem-solving can progressively enhance reasoning abilities without PRM integration, challenging the perceived necessity of process supervision. In this study, we conduct a systematic investigation of the relationship between RL training and PRM capabilities. Our findings demonstrate that problem-solving proficiency and process supervision capabilities represent complementary dimensions of reasoning that co-evolve synergistically during pure RL training. In particular, current PRMs underperform simple baselines like majority voting when applied to state-of-the-art models such as DeepSeek-R1 and QwQ-32B. To address this limitation, we propose Self-PRM, an introspective framework in which models autonomously evaluate and rerank their generated solutions through self-reward mechanisms. Although Self-PRM consistently improves the accuracy of the benchmark (particularly with larger sample sizes), analysis exposes persistent challenges: The approach exhibits low precision (<10\%) on difficult problems, frequently misclassifying flawed solutions as valid. These analyses underscore the need for continued RL scaling to improve reward alignment and introspective accuracy. Overall, our findings suggest that PRM may not be essential for enhancing complex reasoning, as pure RL not only improves problem-solving skills but also inherently fosters robust PRM capabilities. We hope these findings provide actionable insights for building more reliable and self-aware complex reasoning models.

Related papers

• Good Learners Think Their Thinking: Generative PRM Makes Large Reasoning Model More Efficient Math Learner [31.033131727230277]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) have recently shown promise in solving complex math problems when optimized with Reinforcement Learning (RL)<n>We propose a novel intrinsic signal-driven generative process evaluation mechanism operating at the thought level to address major bottlenecks in RL-based training.<n>Experiments on 1.5B and 7B parameter LRMs demonstrate that our method achieves higher problem-solving accuracy with significantly fewer training samples than outcome-only reward baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-31T07:54:58Z)
• Beyond Accuracy: Dissecting Mathematical Reasoning for LLMs Under Reinforcement Learning [82.43575191712726]
  We introduce a fine-grained analytic framework to dissect the impact ofReinforcement learning on reasoning.<n>Our framework specifically investigates key elements that have been hypothesized to benefit from RL training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T07:53:59Z)
• Socratic-PRMBench: Benchmarking Process Reward Models with Systematic Reasoning Patterns [79.42805969325036]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) are crucial in complex reasoning and problem-solving tasks.<n>PRMs are required to identify errors under various reasoning patterns during the reasoning process.<n>Existing benchmarks mainly focus on evaluating PRMs with stepwise correctness.<n>We introduce Socratic-PRMBench, a new benchmark to evaluate PRMs systematically under six reasoning patterns.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T14:26:53Z)
• RM-R1: Reward Modeling as Reasoning [81.50471199906738]
  Reasoning Reward Models (ReasRMs) formulate reward modeling as a reasoning task.<n>We propose a reasoning-oriented training pipeline and train a family of ReasRMs, RM-R1.<n>Our models achieve state-of-the-art performance across three reward model benchmarks on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-05T06:11:12Z)
• Trade-offs in Large Reasoning Models: An Empirical Analysis of Deliberative and Adaptive Reasoning over Foundational Capabilities [101.77467538102924]
  Recent advancements in Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) have demonstrated remarkable performance in specialized reasoning tasks.<n>We show that acquiring deliberative reasoning capabilities significantly reduces the foundational capabilities of LRMs.<n>We demonstrate that adaptive reasoning -- employing modes like Zero-Thinking, Less-Thinking, and Summary-Thinking -- can effectively alleviate these drawbacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T08:18:51Z)
• ReARTeR: Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning with Trustworthy Process Rewarding [25.329712997545794]
  We propose Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning through Trustworthy Process Rewarding (ReARTeR)<n>ReARTeR enhances RAG systems' reasoning capabilities through post-training and test-time scaling.<n> Experimental results on multi-step reasoning benchmarks demonstrate significant improvements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-14T05:56:26Z)
• The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoning [62.165534879284735]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) aim to identify and mitigate intermediate errors in the reasoning processes.<n>We develop a consensus filtering mechanism that effectively integrates Monte Carlo (MC) estimation with Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We release a new state-of-the-art PRM that outperforms existing open-source alternatives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T13:10:16Z)
• 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.<n>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)
• 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)
• Combining Pessimism with Optimism for Robust and Efficient Model-Based Deep Reinforcement Learning [56.17667147101263]
  In real-world tasks, reinforcement learning agents encounter situations that are not present during training time. To ensure reliable performance, the RL agents need to exhibit robustness against worst-case situations. We propose the Robust Hallucinated Upper-Confidence RL (RH-UCRL) algorithm to provably solve this problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-18T16:50:17Z)

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.