Reinforcement learning (RL) has become one of the primary paradigms for reasoning enhancement of large language models (LLMs). In particular, Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) and related algorithms have demonstrated strong performance with outcome-level rewards. However, these methods depend solely on the final answer, without feedback regarding which intermediate steps contribute to success or failure. As task complexity and reasoning trajectory length increase, such sparse final-answer rewards become increasingly insufficient. To address this limitation, we introduce ConsensusBench, a novel dataset designed to provide rule-based process-level signals. We posit that a correct final answer relies on a small set of intermediate conclusions throughout the reasoning process, which can be seen as a verifiable sub-outcome. We identify these sub-outcomes by filtering correct trajectories from N rollouts and clustering semantically equivalent intermediate statements. We call these clustered statements as Consensus Nodes. By integrating a rule-based process reward derived from these nodes into GRPO-style algorithms, we develop a new reinforcement learning signal named ConsensusPR. It directly reduces the reward sparsity of outcome reward across long reasoning trajectories. To facilitate systematic process-level evaluation, we introduce three metrics to our benchmark: Final Answer Accuracy (Acc), Node Coverage Rate (NCR), and Tokens per Node (TPN). Experiments across AIME 2024, AIME 2025, GSM8K, MATH-500, and our ConsensusBench demonstrate that the proposed method consistently surpasses GRPO-style approaches, highlighting the practical value of consensus nodes in guiding reasoning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A case study of four main types of mismatch in outcome-only reward. The green spans in the responses indicate the correct reasoning content, while the red ones in the responses indicate the incorrect content.
Source
#Problems
Avg. N(k)
MATH-500
441
5.36
GSM8K
1212
4.53
AIME-2024
30
8.50
AIME-2025
24
7.88
DAPO-MATH-17K
3870
7.64
Total (Test)
1707
4.88
Table 1: Composition and statistics of ConsensusBench .
Model
DNCR
AUROC
AUCPR
Gemini-2.5-pro
30.5
76.9
96.61
MiniMax-M2
33.9
74.1
96.65
GPT-5.2
18.0
65.5
96.58
DeepSeek-V4-pro
16.7
63.0
96.38
Table 2: Consistency metrics between Acc and NCR across models
AIME 24
AIME 25
GSM8K
MATH-500
ConsensusBench
Method
Acc@16
Acc@16
Acc@1
Acc@1
Acc
NCR
Qwen3-4B-Base
Vanilla GRPO
23.3
16.7
92.1
54.4
83.0
75.5
+ ConsensusPRlinear
33.3
20.0
92.8
59.0
84.7
76.8
+ ConsensusPRmax
36.7
23.3
92.6
59.2
84.5
77.4
+ ConsensusPRCL
33.3
26.7
83.0
62.4
78.2
76.5
Table 3: Main results across reasoning benchmarks (pass@1, pass@16, NCR, %). Bold denotes best, underline denotes second best. All models initialized from the same base checkpoints.
Qwen3-4B-Base
Qwen3-8B-Base
Methods
TPN
TPN
vanilla GRPO
433.95
1527.35
+ linear
744.13
1786.49
+ max
564.43
1792.43
+ CL
562.92
1529.14
vanilla DAPO
320.47
1349.12
Table 4: Tokens per node (TPN) scores across models.
Methods
Easy
Medium
Hard
Acc
DAPO
76.7
62.8
41.8
+ linear
76.7(+0.0%)
64.4(+2.5%)
46.3(+10.8%)
+ max
79.1(+1.3%)
64.1(+2.1%)
42.5(+1.7%)
+ CL
83.7(+9.1%)
71.5(+13.8%)
49.3(+17.9%)
Response Length
Table 5: Difficulty Analysis on Qwen3-4B-Base.
Figure 2: Performance curves of Qwen3-4B-Base across metrics when trained with different values of the hyperparameter α . More detailed data are provided in Appendix D.3 .
AIME 24
AIME 25
GSM8K
MATH-500
ConsensusBench
Method
Acc@16
Acc@16
Acc@1
Acc@1
Acc
NCR
TPN
Qwen3-1.7B-Base
Vanilla GRPO
10.0
6.67
81.3
49.2
73.4
70.7
1,927
+ ConsensusPRlinear
16.7
16.7
71.4
57.8
70.3
71.3
1,340
+ ConsensusPRmax
13.3
10.0
78.1
59.0
74.7
71.1
1,265
+ ConsensusPRCL
6.7
6.7
75.2
59.4
73.2
69.9
677
Table 6: Results across reasoning benchmarks (pass@1, pass@16, NCR, (%), TPN( Ntokens )) on Qwen3-1.7B-Base.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Acc
NCR
TPN
Gemini-2.5-pro
91.8
80.1
299.42
MiniMax-M2
93.3
67.9
60.61
GPT-5.2
95.1
86.3
172.81
DeepSeek-V4-pro
95.0
73.6
144.26
Appendix
Table 7: Consistency metrics between Acc and NCR across models.
Metrics
Consistency
Recall Rate
Human Validation
62.2
90.5
Appendix
Table 8: Human annotation validation metrics including annotation consistency and recall rate.
AIME 24
AIME 25
GSM8K
MATH-500
ConsensusBench
α
Acc@16
Acc@16
Acc@1
Acc@1
Acc
NCR
0.0
36.7
33.3
67.1
54.0
65.0
79.8
0.1
40.0
43.3
90.7
61.2
84.4
77.1
0.2
40.0
36.7
92.0
58.6
84.8
78.1
0.3
43.3
33.3
91.2
58.8
84.6
76.5
0.4
40.0
43.3
91.1
62.2
85.4
77.8
Appendix
Table 9: α -sensitivity study on Qwen3-4B-Base.
Model
GSM8K
MATH500
Math-Shepherdllama2-70B
93.2
44.5
Math-Shepherdllemma-34B
90.9
46.0
Math-ShepherdDeepSeek-67B
93.3
47.0
AlphaMathDeepSeekMath-Base-7B
84.1
66.3
OmegaPRMGemma2-27B
92.2
58.2
Appendix
Table 10: Consistency metrics between Acc and NCR across models