Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2410.08146v1

In their paper titled "Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoning," authors Amrith Setlur, Chirag Nagpal, Adam Fisch, Xinyang Geng, Jacob Eisenstein, Rishabh Agarwal, Alekh Agarwal, Jonathan Berant, and Aviral Kumar explore the use of process reward models (PRMs) to enhance reasoning in large language models. PRMs offer feedback at each step of a multi-step reasoning trace and can improve credit assignment compared to outcome reward models (ORMs) that only provide feedback at the final step. However, collecting dense human labels for each step is not practical on a large scale. To address this challenge and improve the base policy through search against a PRM or using it as dense rewards for reinforcement learning (RL), the authors investigate how to design process rewards effectively. Their key insight is that the process reward for a step should measure progress by evaluating the change in likelihood of producing a correct response before and after taking the step. This aligns with the notion of step-level advantages in RL. Importantly, this progress should be evaluated under a prover policy that is distinct from the base policy. The authors theoretically characterize good provers and demonstrate that optimizing process rewards from such provers enhances exploration during test-time search and online RL. They find that even weak prover policies can significantly enhance a stronger base policy. To validate their claims, they train process advantage verifiers (PAVs) to predict progress under these provers. Comparing their approach to ORMs, test-time search against PAVs shows over 8% higher accuracy and 1.5-5 times more compute efficiency. Furthermore, online RL with dense rewards from PAVs achieves significant gains in sample efficiency (5-6 times) and accuracy (over 6%) compared to ORMs. Overall, this research highlights the importance of designing effective process rewards for improving reasoning in large language models and demonstrates significant advancements in exploration during test-time search and online RL through the use of automated process verifiers like PAVs.

• - Authors explore the use of process reward models (PRMs) to enhance reasoning in large language models
• - PRMs offer feedback at each step of a multi-step reasoning trace, improving credit assignment compared to outcome reward models (ORMs)
• - Designing process rewards effectively involves measuring progress by evaluating the change in likelihood of producing a correct response before and after taking a step
• - Progress should be evaluated under a prover policy distinct from the base policy, enhancing exploration during test-time search and online RL
• - Training process advantage verifiers (PAVs) to predict progress under provers shows higher accuracy and compute efficiency compared to ORMs
• - Online RL with dense rewards from PAVs achieves significant gains in sample efficiency and accuracy compared to ORMs

SummaryAuthors are studying how to make big language models smarter by using special rewards called process reward models (PRMs). PRMs give feedback at each step of a problem-solving process, which helps these models learn better. To use PRMs well, we need to measure progress by checking how likely it is for the model to give the right answer before and after each step. By evaluating progress in a smart way, we can help the model explore different ways of solving problems during tests and online learning. Training special helpers called process advantage verifiers (PAVs) to predict progress can make these models learn faster and more accurately compared to other methods. Definitions- Process Reward Models (PRMs): Special rewards that provide feedback at each step of a problem-solving process. - Credit Assignment: Figuring out which actions or steps contributed most to achieving a goal. - Outcome Reward Models (ORMs): Reward systems that only focus on the final result or outcome of an action. - Prover Policy: A set of rules or strategies used to evaluate progress during problem-solving tasks. - Base Policy: The default set of rules or strategies followed by a system in its normal operation. - Process Advantage Verifiers (PAVs): Helpers trained to predict progress and improve learning efficiency in large language models. - Online RL: Online Reinforcement Learning, a method where machines learn through trial and error while interacting with their environment.

Introduction: In recent years, large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in various natural language processing tasks. However, these models often struggle with multi-step reasoning tasks that require the ability to perform complex logical operations and make connections between different pieces of information. To address this challenge, researchers have explored the use of process reward models (PRMs) to enhance reasoning in LLMs. What are Process Reward Models? Process reward models offer feedback at each step of a multi-step reasoning trace, unlike outcome reward models (ORMs) that only provide feedback at the final step. This allows for more precise credit assignment and can improve the overall performance of LLMs on complex reasoning tasks. Challenges with Human Labels: Collecting dense human labels for each step is not practical on a large scale. This poses a challenge for using PRMs effectively as they rely on accurate and detailed feedback at each step. Designing Effective Process Rewards: To address this challenge, authors Amrith Setlur et al. propose an approach to design effective process rewards for improving reasoning in LLMs. Their key insight is that the process reward for a step should measure progress by evaluating the change in likelihood of producing a correct response before and after taking the step. This aligns with the concept of step-level advantages in reinforcement learning (RL). Distinct Prover Policy: The authors also highlight the importance of using a distinct prover policy from the base policy when evaluating progress under PRMs. A prover policy is responsible for generating intermediate steps during multi-step reasoning tasks and should be optimized separately from the base policy. Characterizing Good Provers: The paper provides theoretical insights into what makes a good prover policy and how it can enhance exploration during test-time search and online RL. Training Process Advantage Verifiers (PAVs): To validate their claims, Setlur et al. train process advantage verifiers (PAVs) to predict progress under different prover policies. These PAVs are then used in test-time search and online RL to evaluate the effectiveness of PRMs compared to ORMs. Results: The authors find that even weak prover policies can significantly enhance a stronger base policy when using PRMs. Test-time search against PAVs shows over 8% higher accuracy and 1.5-5 times more compute efficiency compared to ORMs. Online RL with dense rewards from PAVs also achieves significant gains in sample efficiency (5-6 times) and accuracy (over 6%) compared to ORMs. Implications: This research highlights the importance of designing effective process rewards for improving reasoning in LLMs. By optimizing process rewards from good provers, exploration during test-time search and online RL can be enhanced, leading to better performance on complex reasoning tasks. Conclusion: In conclusion, Setlur et al.'s paper "Rewarding Progress: Scaling Automated Process Verifiers for LLM Reasoning" explores the use of PRMs to enhance reasoning in LLMs. Their approach involves designing effective process rewards based on measuring progress through changes in likelihood before and after taking a step, using distinct prover policies, and training PAVs for evaluation purposes. The results demonstrate significant advancements in exploration during test-time search and online RL, highlighting the potential of automated process verifiers like PAVs for improving reasoning in large language models.