Hongtao Tian

Hongzhan Chen, Tao Yang, Shiping Gao et al.

Process reward models (PRMs) provide more nuanced supervision compared to outcome reward models (ORMs) for optimizing policy models, positioning them as a promising approach to enhancing the capabilities of LLMs in complex reasoning tasks. Recent efforts have advanced PRMs from step-level to token-level granularity by integrating reward modeling into the training of generative models, with reward scores derived from token generation probabilities. However, the conflict between generative language modeling and reward modeling may introduce instability and lead to inaccurate credit assignments. To address this challenge, we revisit token-level reward assignment by decoupling reward modeling from language generation and derive a token-level reward model through the optimization of a discriminative policy, termed the Q-function Reward Model (Q-RM). We theoretically demonstrate that Q-RM explicitly learns token-level Q-functions from preference data without relying on fine-grained annotations. In our experiments, Q-RM consistently outperforms all baseline methods across various benchmarks. For example, when integrated into PPO/REINFORCE algorithms, Q-RM enhances the average Pass@1 score by 5.85/4.70 points on mathematical reasoning tasks compared to the ORM baseline, and by 4.56/5.73 points compared to the token-level PRM counterpart. Moreover, reinforcement learning with Q-RM significantly enhances training efficiency, achieving convergence 12 times faster than ORM on GSM8K and 11 times faster than step-level PRM on MATH. Code and data are available at https://github.com/homzer/Q-RM.

Guofu Xie, Yunsheng Shi, Hongtao Tian et al.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has improved the reasoning abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) by using rule-based binary feedback. However, current RLVR methods typically assign the same reward to every token. This coarse-grained feedback hampers precise credit assignment, making it hard for models to identify which reasoning steps lead to success or failure, and often results in suboptimal policies. Methods like PPO provide credit assignment by value estimation, but yield inaccurate and unverifiable signals due to limited sampling. On the other hand, methods using Process Reward Models can provide step-wise rewards but suffer from several key limitations: they require high-quality process supervision labels, the feedback is unreliable due to probabilistic reward modeling, and their application in online reinforcement learning (RL) is time-consuming. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a simple but efficient method-Credit Assignment Policy Optimization (CAPO). Instead of training auxiliary models, CAPO directly leverages an off-the-shelf, general-purpose LLM as a Generative Process Reward Model (LLM-as-GenPRM) to generate all step-wise critique by one pass only based on the correctness of the step itself, providing deterministic token-level credits to refine the tokens that were originally assigned identical rule-based rewards. To further enhance the accuracy and robustness, we employ voting mechanisms that scale with the number of generated critiques. Extensive experiments on various backbones like Llama and Qwen models show that CAPO consistently outperforms supervised learning-based and RL-based fine-tuning methods across four challenging mathematical benchmarks and three out-of-domain benchmarks. Further analysis shows that CAPO can help the model to foster the learning of correct reasoning pathways leading to correct answers.

Qiyao Ma, Yunsheng Shi, Hongtao Tian et al.

Through reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), large language models have achieved substantial progress in domains with easily verifiable outcomes, such as mathematics and coding. However, when applied to more complex tasks like open-domain question answering, RLVR faces significant challenges due to the difficulty of verifying correctness. The nuanced and ambiguous nature of real-world knowledge makes it difficult to reliably evaluate correctness in these settings, necessitating further abilities that extend beyond mere logical consistency to encompass an understanding and assessment of both external and internal knowledge. Recent work has primarily focused on improving faithfulness, defined as semantic alignment with supporting documents, which can cause models to rely excessively on external sources and diminish their capacity for critical assessment. To address this, we propose the Thinking-supervised Reward Model (TRM), which incorporates sentence-level thinking supervision to endow reward models with critical thinking abilities. Given a query, answer, and supporting documents, TRM first assesses the faithfulness of each answer sentence to the supporting documents, and then applies a reasoning step to evaluate sentence-level correctness. By structuring reward modeling as a sequence of faithfulness, reasoning, and correctness evaluations, TRM encourages models to critically assess and leverage both external and internal knowledge. Experiments on reward signals demonstrate that TRM substantially improves the identification of incorrect sentences, and incorporating TRM into policy optimization leads to significant gains in both answer correctness and usefulness.