Efficient Process Reward Modeling via Contrastive Mutual Information
Authors: Nakyung Lee, Sangwoo Hong, Jungwoo Lee
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Seoul National University · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Konkuk University
Recent research has devoted considerable effort to verifying the intermediate reasoning steps of chain-of-thought (CoT) trajectories using process reward models (PRMs) and other verifier models. However, training a PRM typically requires human annotators to assign reward scores to each reasoning step, which is both costly and time-consuming. Existing automated approaches, such as Monte Carlo (MC) estimation, also demand substantial computational resources due to repeated LLM rollouts. To overcome these limitations, we propose contrastive pointwise mutual information (CPMI), a novel automatic reward labeling method that leverages the model's internal probability to infer step-level supervision while significantly reducing the computational burden of annotating dataset. CPMI quantifies how much a reasoning step increases the mutual information between the step and the correct target answer relative to hard-negative alternatives. This contrastive signal serves as a proxy for the step's contribution to the final solution and yields a reliable reward. The experimental results show that CPMI-based labeling reduces dataset construction time by 84% and token generation by 98% compared to MC estimation, while achieving higher accuracy on process-level evaluations and mathematical reasoning benchmarks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Main framework of our reward modeling and PRM training. We sample both gold and hard-negative answer and compute the logit differences between the with-step and without-step through a simple forward pass for each answer. The CPMI reward for each step is defined as the difference between these logit gaps, quantifying how much the step shifts the model’s belief toward the gold answer while diverging from the wrong answer. After normalizing the CPMI-based rewards and using them as soft labels, we train the PRM with a binary cross-entropy objective. The trained PRM is subsequently used during inference to evaluate or rerank reasoning trajectories.
Model Quality
Computation Cost (Ratio)
RelEff ( × )
Reward Type
AUC
PB
PRMB
MATH
Time
Token
AUC
PB
PRMB
MATH
MC
0.759
27.7
38.8
45.4
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
PAV
0.757
36.6
49.6
47.2
1.17
2.38
0.85
1.12
1.09
0.89
CPMI
0.765
34.6
58.8
48.2
0.16 ( ↓ 84%)
0.02 ( ↓ 98%)
6.34
7.85
9.53
6.68
CPMI_Merge
0.766
36.8
60.7
49.4
0.30 ( ↓ 70%)
0.18 ( ↓ 82%)
3.38
4.45
5.24
3.64
Table 1: Efficiency comparison of CPMI-based reward methods with MC. Computation costs (Time, Generated Tokens) are accumulated over a subset of 10K samples. RelEff quantifies the quality–cost trade-off relative to the baseline, as illustrated in Eq. 9 . Best results are highlighted in bold , and second-best results are underlined .
Setting
AUC
PB
PRMB
Math
MMLU
Gold_only
0.419
15.53
41.85
41.6
71.52
Neg_only
0.725
24.65
57.42
40.8
68.92
Both
0.765
39.48
60.04
50.4
75.67
Table 2: Comparison of different reward signal configurations. Gold_only uses only the correct-answer term, Neg_only uses only the contrastive negative term, and Both combines both terms as in Eq. 3 . AUC measures the step-level discriminative ability in a threshold-free manner. PB denotes the average F1 score, PRMB denotes the overall PRMScore, and MATH refers to the MATH500 BoN@8 accuracy.
Reward Type
ROC-AUC ( ↑ )
Wasserstein ( ↑ )
MC
0.759
0.092
PAV
0.757
0.105
CPMI
0.765
0.135
CPMI_Merge
0.766
0.133
Rand_Merge
0.379
0.007
Table 3: Distribution-level analysis of PRM scores on the ProcessBench-Math split. Wasserstein reports the 1-Wasserstein distance between the two score distributions in probability space. Bold values indicate the best performance for each metric.
Figure 2: PRM probability distributions on ProcessBench Math split. The x-axis indicates the PRM probabilites. The y-axis shows the normalized density of step occurrences. Blue and orange histograms correspond to correct and incorrect reasoning steps, respectively.
Reward Type
GSM8K
Math
Olympiad
Omni
Average
MC
35.2
38.8
17.9
18.9
27.7
PAV
51.8
43.8
27.6
23.1
36.6
CPMI
49.4
39.6
24.5
24.8
34.6
CPMI_Merge
52.0
40.8
28.7
25.6
36.8
Rand_Merge
21.7
24.9
12.2
15.9
18.7
MS*
47.9
33.9
24.8
19.8
31.5
Table 4: Performance by reward type on ProcessBench (F1 only). The Average column indicates the mean F1 across the four datasets. Rows marked with * correspond to reported performance in Wang et al. (2024) . Bold values indicate the best F1 in each column.
Reward Type
Simplicity
Soundness
Sensitivity
Total
MC
40.88
36.92
35.06
38.80
PAV
47.16
49.56
47.20
49.64
CPMI
52.56
60.21
55.59
58.75
CPMI_Merge
54.65
62.30
56.50
60.67
Rand_Merge
27.65
21.64
18.65
23.20
Table 5: PRMBench results. Average scores over nine categories into three step-level dimensions (Simplicity, Soundness, Sensitivity) and the overall average for each reward method.
Figure 3: Best-of- N accuracy on math benchmarks. The x-axis denotes the number of samples N used for Best-of- N selection, and the y-axis reports accuracy.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: The four prompts used for diversification.
Figure 5: Prompt for generating hard-negative answers.
Statistic
Ratio (%) / Count
Total samples
80,000
Task Source (GSM8K : MATH)
1:1
Composition (mixed : pure)
7:3
Appendix
Table 6: Statistics of the CPMI-80k dataset. All values are reported as counts or ratios.
GSM8K
Math
Olympiad
Omni
Average
Reward Type
Err
Corr
F1
Err
Corr
F1
Err
Corr
F1
Err
Corr
F1
F1
MC
22.2
85.0
35.2
25.9
76.8
38.8
10.7
54.3
17.9
11.5
53.9
18.9
27.7
PAV
35.7
93.8
51.8
32.2
68.5
43.8
17.5
64.3
27.6
14.5
57.3
23.1
36.6
CPMI
35.7
79.8
49.4
29.0
62.8
39.6
15.9
53.7
24.5
17.5
42.3
24.8
34.6
CPMI_Merge
37.2
86.5
52.0
31.0
59.6
40.8
20.1
49.9
28.7
18.4
41.9
25.6
36.8
Rand_Merge
13.5
55.4
21.7
16.5
50.5
24.9
7.1
43.4
12.2
9.6
46.1
15.9
18.7
Appendix
Table 7: Detailed Performance by reward type on ProcessBench. The last two rows marked with * correspond to the reported performance in Wang et al. (2024) . Bold values indicate the best F1 score in each column.
Simplicity
Soundness
Sensitivity
Overall
Reward Type
NR
NCL
ES
SC
DC
CI
PS
DR
MS
MC
37.56
44.20
43.18
26.84
36.72
40.94
42.28
42.30
20.61
38.8
PAV
45.69
48.62
55.86
39.09
46.96
56.32
50.17
53.18
38.25
49.64
CPMI
50.22
54.89
63.76
56.99
56.58
63.52
57.70
62.02
47.06
58.75
CPMI_Merge
51.27
58.02
65.99
58.96
58.70
65.53
59.28
63.34
46.89
60.67
Rand_Merge
20.14
35.15
26.40
19.26
21.11
19.79
25.71
23.24
7.00
23.20
Appendix
Table 8: PRMBench results across reward designs. Bold values indicate the best PRMScore.
Labeler
Reward
ROC-AUC ↑
PB ↑
PRMB ↑
MATH500 ↑
Δ Time
Δ Token
Qwen2.5-1.5B
MC
0.72
28.4
16.2
41.6
0%
0%
CPMI-based
0.75
36.1
51.8
45.8
-65%
-82%
Llama3.2-1B
MC
0.73
29.5
18.6
48.0
0%
0%
CPMI-based
0.76
37.0
59.1
47.6
-73%
-82%
Appendix
Table 9: Robustness of CPMI across smaller labeling models from different families.
Reward Type
FOLIO ↑
LogiQA 2.0 ↑
LogicNLI ↑
MC
54.19
33.39
25.4
CPMI
59.61
37.71
32.1
CPMI_Merge
58.62
35.66
30.8
Rand_Merge
42.86
24.54
24.5
Appendix
Table 10: Generalization to out-of-distribution logical reasoning benchmarks under zero-shot BoN@8.
Loss
Reward
ProcessBench
PRMBench
MATH500
BCE
MC
27.7
38.8
45.4
CPMI
34.6
58.8
48.2
PQM
MC
37.9
45.4
44.0
CPMI
35.6
56.7
46.2
MSE
MC
31.0
43.1
45.4
CPMI
35.5
59.9
47.2
Appendix
Table 11: Robustness of CPMI across different PRM training objectives.
Figure 6: Ablation results varying the number of hard-negative targets M in the CPMI objective. We report both process-level metrics (ROC-AUC, PB, PRM) and downstream performance (Math, MMLU).
Model Quality
Computation Cost (Ratio)
RelEff ( × )
Merge Index
MC(%)
CPMI(%)
ROC-AUC
PB
PRMB
MATH
Time
ratio
gen_tokens
AUC
PB
PRMB
MATH
CPMI
0
100
0.765
34.6
58.8
48.2
38,603
0.16
1,579,148
6.34
7.85
9.53
6.68
CPMI_Merge1
16.6
83.4
0.766
36.8
60.7
49.4
72,553
0.30
16,420,803
3.38
4.45
5.24
3.64
CPMI_Merge2
33.2
66.8
0.784
35.8
58.9
47.0
106,452
0.44
31,239,824
2.36
2.95
3.47
2.36
CPMI_Merge3
48.0
52.0
0.804
36.6
56.7
56.6
136,579
0.56
44,410,422
1.88
2.35
2.60
2.22
MC
100
0
0.759
27.7
38.8
45.4
242,930
1.00
90,902,162
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Appendix
Table 12: Efficiency analysis of CPMI merging variants across quality, cost, and cost-effectiveness metrics.
Model Quality
Computation Cost (Ratio)
RelEff ( × )
Reward Type
AUC
PB
PRMB
MATH
Time
Token
AUC
PB
PRMB
MATH
PAV
0.757
36.6
49.6
47.2
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
CPMI
0.765
34.6
58.8
48.2
0.14 ( ↓ 86%)
0.01 ( ↓ 99%)
7.46
6.99
8.75
7.55
CPMI_Merge1
0.766
36.3
60.2
49.2
0.28 ( ↓ 72%)
0.17 ( ↓ 83%)
3.63
3.56
4.35
3.74
CPMI_Merge2
0.750
37.5
56.8
49.6
0.42 ( ↓ 58%)
0.34 ( ↓ 66%)
2.34
2.43
2.71
2.49
CPMI_Merge3
0.797
39.9
56.1
48.1
0.55 ( ↓ 45%)
0.48 ( ↓ 52%)
1.91
1.98
2.06
1.86
Appendix
Table 13: Efficiency comparison of CPMI and PAV. Computation costs (Time, Generated Tokens) are accumulated over subset of 10K samples.
Training process reward models (PRMs) requires step-level correctness labels, obtained either through expensive human annotation or by relying on ground-truth answers, limiting the ability to scale process-level supervision. We propose ScalePRM, which scales verification compute as an alternative: given a problem and a candidate solution, we generate multiple independent verifications of each reasoning step and aggregate their judgments to produce synthetic step-level labels without ground truth. We explore two representative inference-time scaling strategies, parallel scaling through self-consistency and sequential scaling through meta-critique, and train generative PRMs on the resulting synthetic data. On ProcessBench, a benchmark for identifying erroneous steps in mathematical reasoning, PRMs trained on step-level self-consistency data achieve 67.5 F1, surpassing reference-guided training with ground-truth access (66.4 F1) and GPT-4o as a critic (61.9 F1). When deployed as reward signals in RL training with Qwen2.5-Math-7B, our best PRM achieves 47.4% average accuracy across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks, outperforming ground-truth-based RLVR (43.9%). We also identify and address reward exploitation patterns unique to generative PRM-based RL. Our results demonstrate that scaling verification compute is a viable alternative to ground-truth supervision for training process reward models.
Salman Rahman, Sruthi Gorantla, Arpit Gupta +3
2UCLA · Work done while as an intern at Amazon AGI. · 1Amazon AGI
Process Reward Models (PRMs) are a powerful mechanism for steering large language model reasoning by providing fine-grained, step-level supervision. However, this effectiveness comes at a significant cost: PRMs require expert annotations for every reasoning step, making them costly and difficult to scale. Here, we propose a method for training unsupervised PRMs (uPRM) that requires no human supervision, neither at the level of step-by-step annotations nor through ground-truth verification of final answers. The key idea behind our approach is to define a scoring function, derived from LLM next-token probabilities, that jointly assesses candidate positions of first erroneous steps across a batch of reasoning trajectories. We demonstrate the effectiveness of uPRM across diverse scenarios: (i) uPRM achieves up to 15% absolute accuracy improvements over the LLM-as-a-Judge in identifying first erroneous steps on the ProcessBench dataset; (ii) as a verifier for test-time scaling, uPRM performs comparably to supervised PRMs and outperforms the majority voting baseline by up to 6.9%, and (iii) when used as a reward signal in reinforcement learning, uPRM enables more robust policy optimization throughout training compared to a supervised PRM trained using ground-truth labels. Overall, our results open a path toward scalable reward modeling for complex reasoning tasks.
Understanding and evaluating multi-step reasoning in LLMs at the level of individual steps remains a key challenge. Process reward models (PRMs) provide a solution by scoring each step, enabling fine-grained supervision and improved reliability. However, training them requires costly human annotation or computationally intensive rollout-based labeling. To solve this, we introduce MCNIG, a scalable method for automatically labeling the quality of individual reasoning steps in any verifiable domain. Its step score, net information gain (NetIG), improves upon single-reference information gain (IG) by comparing the most-supported correct answer against the most-supported incorrect one, yielding a robust signal even for long and structured outputs like code and SQL, where IG fails. We show that the signal produced by MCNIG correlates with human judgments of step quality, and we apply MCNIG labels to train PRMs that achieve the best average best-of-K accuracy across eight benchmarks spanning mathematics, code generation, text-to-SQL, and scientific QA. Crucially, MCNIG generates no rollouts, cutting labeling complexity to O(N) and making it up to X times cheaper than rollout-based methods at comparable label quality, which makes large-scale process supervision practical.
Corentin Royer, Anna Hedström, Debarun Bhattacharjya +3
International Business Machines · ETH AI Center · Lirio +1