Legibility is Not Interpretability: Comparing Judged and Actual Importance in Chain-Of-Thought Reasoning

Reasoning traces from chain-of-thought models appear to offer a legible window into how a model arrives at its answer. A growing body of work treats them as such, using LLM judges to diagnose errors, evaluate faithfulness, and provide step-level supervision via process reward models and generative critics. These practices rely on the text of a reasoning step carrying information about its functional role. But does the text actually encode information about which reasoning steps matter? We operationalize the importance of a reasoning step as its advantage: the change in expected reward, e.g., producing the correct final answer, from including that step, estimated via Monte Carlo rollouts. Basing ground truth on these estimates, we evaluate whether LLM judges can identify high-advantage steps and find that sufficiently capable LLMs can outperform a prevalence baseline but fall well short of a noise ceiling. Fine-tuning a model as a step-level critic yields strong improvement for incorrect responses but remains distant from ceiling for correct responses, suggesting that step importance is only partially recoverable from the text of the reasoning trace. Our findings contribute to a growing body of chain-of-thought faithfulness work that cautions against treating the legibility of reasoning traces as interpretability, especially with implications for process reward modeling.

Mitigating Over-Optimization in PRM-Guided Search in Mathematical Reasoning by Optimizing the Guide

Process reward models (PRMs) provide dense step-level guidance for search-based reasoning, enabling inference-time compute to be allocated toward promising partial solutions. However, recent evidence suggests that PRM-guided search can over-optimize imperfect process rewards, pruning viable trajectories while expanding spurious ones. In this work, we theoretically show that directly leveraging PRM score is vulnerable to verifier noise through an extreme-value effect: non-viable prefixes become more likely to receive spuriously high scores as reasoning depth increase. Therefore, we formulate the PRM-guided search as a robust optimization problem over plausible reward perturbations, termed maximin PRM-guided search, leading to a training-free robust process supervision method that preserves promising alternatives when step-level scores are noisy. Maximin PRM-guided search mitigates this failure mode by reducing sensitivity to over-optimized PRM outliers. Without fine-tuning or online adaptation, maximin search consistently improves the PRM-guided search by 17-35\% on average, outperforming outcome- and step-level baselines in 14 out of 16 settings. Our source code is available at https://github.com/tjoo512/maximin-search.

Neuro-symbolic PRM: Enhancing Scientific Reasoning via Structured Traces and Symbolic Verification

While tool-augmented Large Language Models have significantly improved multi-step reasoning in quantitative STEM tasks, a critical residual failure mode remains: intermediate reasoning steps that are syntactically well-formed, mathematically executable, and unit-consistent, yet contextually ungrounded. Current approaches either rely on formal verifiers that cannot assess semantic intent, or burden Process Reward Models (PRMs) with the dual task of checking both arithmetic and logic. In this paper, we propose a neuro-symbolic framework that cleanly decouples reasoning into two formal dimensions: Symbolic Validity ($V$) and Semantic Groundedness ($G$). We guarantee $V$ by construction using a deterministic symbolic verifier acting as a hard filter. To assess $G$, we train a PRM conditionally on the verifier-accepted manifold. To train this PRM efficiently, we introduce Counterfactual Symbolic Perturbation (CSP), a novel data synthesis strategy that algorithmically generates constraint-preserving hard negatives (steps that perfectly pass the verifier but are logically flawed). At inference, we deploy a verifier-first constrained search that guarantees execution consistency for verifier-covered operations while relying on the PRM solely to rank semantic grounding. By targeting the exact residual error class of strong tool-using LLMs, our method significantly improves reasoning reliability without the sprawling heuristics of prior frameworks.

Quality-Diversity Stress Tests for Process Reward Models:What Archive Coverage Can and Cannot Certify

Process reward models (PRMs) score intermediate reasoning steps and are widely used for search, ranking, and training, but optimization can exploit these learned proxies by increasing reward while turning correct reasoning into incorrect reasoning. We formulate PRM stress testing as a quality-diversity search problem using MAP-Elites, retaining the most severe correctness-flipping edit in each behavior-space region while separating search coverage from exploit coverage. We characterize what such archives certify: finite-cell repair bounds covered-cell tail risk and average residual severity but cannot bound the worst remaining cell from covered fraction alone; under Lipschitz post-repair loss and metric-cover auditing, the residual is bounded by archive fitting error plus the Lipschitz constant times the covering radius. A controlled landscape validates this certificate and the impossibility of any fraction-only worst-case guarantee. On real PRMs, the search reveals an aggregation-dependent vulnerability in Qwen2.5-Math-PRM-7B: padding yields 44 strict exploits with maximum gain 0.294 under mean pooling versus one exploit under minimum readout; a matched syntactic control isolates the mechanism, and an RLHFlow value-head model shows the same qualitative effect with maximum gain 0.005. A predeclared paired LoRA repair protocol reduces exploit rates from 0.148 to 0.037 to 0.074, lowers the worst attack from 0.333 to 0.177 to 0.212, improves ranking AUROC without degrading best-of-4 accuracy, attributes gains to adversarial fine-tuning rather than archive diversity, and is confirmed by independent unpaired replications (44 to 1, clean-split worst gain 0.0092, MATH-500 41 to 0, clean ranking 40/40).

KV-PRM: Efficient Process Reward Modeling via KV-Cache Transfer for Multi-Agent Test-Time Scaling

Process Reward Models (PRMs) have been proven to be highly effective in guiding test-time scaling (TTS) methods, which significantly boost the capabilities of LLM-based multi-agent systems. However, existing PRMs are text-based: they re-encode the entire trajectory text from scratch. In long multi-agent rollouts, the scoring cost, growing quadratically with respect to sequence length L, creates a severe computational bottleneck, severely limiting PRMs' application in long-context scenarios. To resolve this, we introduce KV-PRM, a highly efficient process reward model that eliminates the heavy text re-encoding by directly reading the KV cache produced naturally during the LLM's generation phase. By processing a single "verify token" against the pre-existing KV cache, KV-PRM reduces the scoring cost from O(L^2) to O(L). We formally prove that the KV cache contains strictly greater information capacity than text, and is more efficient for downstream reward modeling. Empirically, across the MATH, GSM8K, and AIME benchmarks, KV-PRM matches or strictly outperforms text-PRMs under various TTS methods such as Beam Search, MCTS, and Weighted Voting, with up to a 5,000x reduction in scoring FLOPs, a 37x reduction in latency, and a 34x reduction in per-sequence memory footprint compared to text-based PRMs.

The Weakest Link Tells It All: Outcome-Supervised Process Reward Modeling via Learnable Credit Assignment

Process reward models (PRMs) enhance the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) by providing fine-grained feedback, yet training PRMs typically requires expensive stepwise annotations. Outcome-supervised PRMs offer a scalable alternative by learning from final-answer correctness alone, but this introduces a fundamental *credit assignment* challenge, i.e., attributing outcomes to responsible reasoning steps. Existing approaches rely on either uniform or causal assignment, both of which fail to anchor credit in step correctness and thus hinder process error identification. In this work, we propose Outcome-Supervised Process Reward Modeling via **L**earnable **C**redit **A**ssignment (**LCA**), an outcome-supervised PRM framework that jointly learns credit assignment and reward modeling under the principle of *Weakest Link Assignment: a reasoning chain is as strong as its weakest link*. To address mutual dependence between credit assignment and reward modeling, we formalize outcome-supervised PRM as a Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) problem and introduce Softmax-Weighted-Sum (SWS) pooling, an MIL pooling technique tailored for strong dependence and redundancy among reasoning states. We prove Bayes consistency of our algorithm under mild assumptions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that **LCA** consistently outperforms state-of-the-art outcome-supervised PRMs across multiple tasks and backbones. Code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/LCA.

Neglected Free Lunch from Post-training: Progress Advantage for LLM Agents

Process reward models enable fine-grained, step-level evaluation of LLMs, yet building them for agentic settings remains prohibitively difficult: long-horizon interactions, irreversible actions, and stochastic environment feedback make both human annotation and Monte Carlo estimation infeasible at scale. In this work, we show that reinforcement learning (RL) post-training already provides the ingredients for effective step-level scoring, eliminating the need for dedicated reward model training altogether. Concretely, we derive an implicit advantage under a general stochastic Markov decision process, which we term progress advantage -- log-probability ratio between the RL-trained policy and its reference policy exactly recovers the optimal advantage function. This formulation makes the resulting signal annotation-free, domain-agnostic, and available as a byproduct of the standard RL post-training pipeline. We validate the effectiveness of the progress advantage across three different applications: test-time scaling, uncertainty quantification, and failure attribution on five benchmarks and four model families. Across all settings, it consistently outperforms confidence-based baselines and, despite requiring no task-specific training, surpasses dedicated trained reward models. We complement these results with deeper analyses on characteristics of progress advantage, offering practical guidance for adoption in real-world agentic systems.

VeriBound: PAC-Bayesian Generalization Bounds for Process Reward Models Trained with Formal Verification Tools

Process Reward Models (PRMs) provide step-level verification for Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning, yet their training data acquisition remains a bottleneck: human annotation is costly and Monte Carlo roll-out estimates are noisy. A recent approach, FOVER, trains PRMs on step-level error labels automatically annotated by formal verification tools such as Z3 and Isabelle, and empirically observes cross-task generalization from symbolic tasks to diverse reasoning benchmarks. However, this generalization phenomenon lacks any theoretical explanation, and no formal bounds exist on the generalization error, sample complexity, convergence rate, or downstream Best-of-K performance of such PRMs. We propose VeriBound, a theoretical framework that provides PAC-Bayesian generalization bounds for PRMs trained with formal verification tools. We establish four main results: (i) a PAC-Bayesian generalization bound that relates the empirical verification error on formal-verification-annotated training data to the expected error on unseen reasoning tasks, with the bound depending on the formal verification accuracy and the divergence between training and test task distributions; (ii) a sample complexity result showing that $O(d \log(d/δ) / ε^2)$ formal-verification-annotated examples suffice to achieve generalization error $ε$ with probability $1-δ$, where $d$ is the complexity of the PRM hypothesis class; (iii) a convergence analysis proving that PRM training with formal verification labels converges at a linear rate under $L$-smoothness and bounded variance conditions; and (iv) an error propagation bound that relates step-level verification error to Best-of-K performance degradation.

The Hidden Bias of Process Reward Models:PRISM for Rewarding the Right Reasoning

Process Reward Models (PRMs) improve credit assignment for reasoning by providing step-level feedback. However, we identify a hidden bias in PRMs caused by severe imbalance in step-level training data. Standard cross-entropy training amplifies this bias, causing PRMs to overcredit plausible but incorrect steps and produce high false-positive rates. We show that these false positives have an asymmetric downstream effect: false negatives mainly slow exploration, whereas false positives actively steer Best-of-N selection, guided decoding, and policy optimization toward flawed reasoning. This suggests that PRM training should shift from pointwise label fitting to reliable relative comparisons. To address this, we propose PRISM (Precision Ranking for Improved Step Modeling), a policy-aware PRM training framework that learns from contrastive step-level comparisons and hard negatives generated by a temporal lookahead strategy, requiring no new human labels. We further use a difficulty-aware curriculum to optimize the contrastive step margin. Across PRMBench and ProcessBench, PRISM substantially reduces false positives (22% on PRMBench) and improves macro F1 over strong discriminative PRMs. When applied to policy optimization and search tasks, including guided decoding and Best-of-N selection, it consistently improves accuracy (up to 22% for guided decoding and 33% for Best-of-N) and robustness. More broadly, trustworthy process supervision is not just about assigning high rewards, but about rewarding the right reasoning for the right reasons.