Metacognition as Reward: Reinforcing LLM Reasoning via Knowledge and Regulation Signals

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.23384v1
• Date: Fri, 22 May 2026 08:54:37 GMT
• Title: Metacognition as Reward: Reinforcing LLM Reasoning via Knowledge and Regulation Signals
• Abstract summary: We introduce Metacognition-as-Reward (MaR), a metacognition-inspired RL framework.<n>MaR guides reasoning through two general process dimensions.<n>MaR consistently improves model performance, achieving up to a 7.7% gain over the base model.
• Score: 75.25256166997414
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent RL methods have substantially improved the reasoning abilities of LLMs. Existing reward designs mainly follow two paradigms: (1) Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) derives outcome signals from executable checks or ground-truth answers, but provides limited guidance for intermediate reasoning behaviors. (2) Rubrics-as-reward (RaR) goes beyond final-answer checking by using natural-language rubrics to assess reasoning quality and task compliance, but often requires instance-specific rubrics and substantial design effort. To address these issues, we introduce Metacognition-as-Reward (MaR), a metacognition-inspired RL framework that guides LLM reasoning through two general process dimensions: i) metacognitive knowledge, which identifies task-relevant information without hand-crafted instance-specific rubrics, and ii) metacognitive regulation, which plans and adjusts the reasoning process to provide reward guidance beyond final-answer outcomes. MaR scaffolds model rollouts into explicit metacognitive components and optimizes them with a trajectory-level reward over task knowledge coverage, regulation fidelity, and final-answer correctness. In this way, MaR extends reward feedback to reasoning trajectories while grounding the reward signals in general metacognitive dimensions. Experiments on 22 benchmarks show that MaR consistently improves model performance, achieving up to a 7.7% gain over the base model and up to an 11.0% gain over vanilla DAPO. Notably, Qwen3.5-9B + MaR narrows the gap to frontier models, surpassing GPT-OSS-120B on overall average and outperforming stronger models on several individual benchmarks. Process-level analysis further shows substantial improvements in reasoning process quality. MaR also generalizes to out-of-domain datasets, where MaR-trained models improve over their corresponding base models on average.

Related papers

• Cognitive Demand Steering for Adaptive Meta-Reasoning in Large Language Models [12.235165912578095]
  Cognitive Demand Steering is a training-free meta-reasoning framework equipped with residual demand assessment.<n>Averaged across three frontier LLMs and six reasoning benchmarks, CDS improves accuracy by $21.9%$ over direct calls and $9%$ over standard CoT reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-02T15:41:12Z)
• Beyond Outcome Verification: Verifiable Process Reward Models for Structured Reasoning [14.632557283678898]
  Verifiable Process Reward Models (VPRMs) are a reinforcement-learning framework in which intermediate reasoning steps are checked by deterministic, rule-based verifiers.<n>We apply VPRMs to risk-of-bias assessment for medical evidence synthesis.<n>Results show that VPRMs achieve up to 20% higher F1 than state-of-the-art models and 6.5% higher than verifiable outcome rewards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T23:22:20Z)
• From <Answer> to <Think>: Multidimensional Supervision of Reasoning Process for LLM Optimization [62.07990937720985]
  Dimension-level Reward Model (DRM) is a new supervision framework for Large Language Models.<n>DRM evaluates the quality of a reasoning process along three fundamental, complementary, and interpretable dimensions.<n> Experimental results show that DRM provides effective supervision signals, guides the optimization of LLMs and enhances their reasoning ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T14:29:15Z)
• From Sufficiency to Reflection: Reinforcement-Guided Thinking Quality in Retrieval-Augmented Reasoning for LLMs [13.410543801811992]
  This paper analyzes existing RAG reasoning models and identifies three main failure patterns.<n>We propose TIRESRAG-R1, a novel framework using a think-retrieve-reflect process and a multi-dimensional reward system.<n>Experiments on four multi-hop QA datasets show that TIRESRAG-R1 outperforms prior RAG methods and generalizes well to single-hop tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T14:29:44Z)
• ReasonFlux-PRM: Trajectory-Aware PRMs for Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning in LLMs [75.72672339168092]
  We introduce ReasonFlux-PRM, a novel trajectory-aware PRM to evaluate trajectory-response type of reasoning traces.<n>ReasonFlux-PRM incorporates both step-level and trajectory-level supervision, enabling fine-grained reward assignment aligned with structured chain-of-thought data.<n>Our derived ReasonFlux-PRM-7B yields consistent performance improvements, achieving average gains of 12.1% in supervised fine-tuning, 4.5% in reinforcement learning, and 6.3% in test-time scaling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T17:59:02Z)
• GRPO-CARE: Consistency-Aware Reinforcement Learning for Multimodal Reasoning [53.894789613838654]
  We introduce SEED-Bench-R1, a benchmark with complex real-world videos requiring balanced perception and reasoning.<n>Using SEED-Bench-R1, we find that standard GRPO, while improving answer accuracy, often reduces logical coherence between reasoning steps and answers, with only a 57.9% consistency rate.<n>We propose GRPO-CARE, a consistency-aware RL framework optimizing both answer correctness and reasoning coherence without explicit supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-19T08:49:13Z)
• 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)
• R-PRM: Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling [53.06844294668382]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) have emerged as a promising solution by evaluating each reasoning step.<n>Existing PRMs typically output evaluation scores directly, limiting both learning efficiency and evaluation accuracy.<n>We propose Reasoning-Driven Process Reward Modeling (R-PRM)<n>R-PRM generates seed data from limited annotations, effectively bootstrapping our model's reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T09:23:08Z)
• 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)
• Entropy-Regularized Process Reward Model [43.09203393852343]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in performing complex multi-step reasoning, yet they continue to struggle with mathematical reasoning.<n>We propose an entropy-regularized process reward model (ER-PRM) that integrates KL-regularized Markov Decision Processes (MDP)<n>Our empirical experiments on the MATH and GSM8K benchmarks demonstrate that ER-PRM consistently outperforms existing process reward models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-15T01:09:23Z)
• 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.