Changwen Zheng

Zeen Song, Zihao Ma, Wenwen Qiang et al.

Inference-time reasoning scaling has significantly advanced the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in complex problem-solving. A prevalent approach involves external search guided by Process Reward Models (PRMs). However, a fundamental limitation of this framework is the epistemic uncertainty of PRMs when evaluating reasoning paths that deviate from their training distribution. In this work, we conduct a systematic analysis of this challenge. We first provide empirical evidence that PRMs exhibit high uncertainty and unreliable scoring on out-of-distribution (OOD) samples. We then establish a theoretical framework proving that while standard search incurs linear regret accumulation, an uncertainty-aware strategy can achieve sublinear regret. Motivated by these findings, we propose Uncertainty-Aware Tree Search (UATS), a unified method that estimates uncertainty via Monte Carlo Dropout and dynamically allocates compute budget using a reinforcement learning-based controller. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach effectively mitigates the impact of OOD errors.

Jingyao Wang, Peizheng Guo, Wenwen Qiang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at complex tasks with advances in reasoning capabilities. However, existing reward mechanisms remain tightly coupled to final correctness and pay little attention to the underlying reasoning process: trajectories with sound reasoning but wrong answers receive low credit, while lucky guesses with flawed logic may be highly rewarded, affecting reasoning generalization. From a causal perspective, we interpret multi-candidate reasoning for a fixed question as a family of counterfactual experiments with theoretical supports. Building on this, we propose Group Causal Counterfactual Policy Optimization to explicitly train LLMs to learn generalizable reasoning patterns. It proposes an episodic causal counterfactual reward that jointly captures (i) robustness, encouraging the answer distribution induced by a reasoning step to remain stable under counterfactual perturbations; and (ii) effectiveness, enforcing sufficient variability so that the learned reasoning strategy can transfer across questions. We then construct token-level advantages from this reward and optimize the policy, encouraging LLMs to favor reasoning patterns that are process-valid and counterfactually robust. Extensive experiments on diverse benchmarks demonstrate its advantages.

Wenwen Qiang, Ziyin Gu, Jiahuan Zhou et al.

Training stability remains a critical bottleneck for Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), often manifesting as a trade-off between reasoning plasticity and general capability retention. We identify a root cause as the geometric conflict between plasticity and stability gradients, which leads to destructive interference. Crucially, we argue that deterministic projection methods are suboptimal for GRPO as they overlook the intrinsic stochasticity of group-based gradient estimates. To address this, we propose Probabilistic Conflict Resolution (PCR), a Bayesian framework that models gradients as random variables. PCR dynamically arbitrates conflicts via an uncertainty-aware ``soft projection'' mechanism, optimizing the signal-to-noise ratio. Extensive experiments demonstrate that PCR significantly smooths the training trajectory and achieves superior performance in various reasoning tasks.