Efficient Process Reward Modeling via Contrastive Mutual Information
About
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.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Logical reasoning | FOLIO | Accuracy59.61 | 123 | |
| Logical reasoning | LogiQA-2 | Accuracy37.71 | 34 | |
| Logical reasoning | LogicNLI | Accuracy32.1 | 11 | |
| Process-level Evaluation | ProcessBench GSM8K | F1 Score52 | 7 | |
| Process-level Evaluation | ProcessBench Olympiad | F1 Score28.7 | 7 | |
| Process-level Evaluation | ProcessBench Omni | F1 Score25.6 | 7 | |
| Process-level Evaluation | ProcessBench Average | Mean F136.8 | 7 | |
| Process-level Evaluation | PROCESSBENCH MATH | F1 Score40.8 | 7 | |
| Step-level quality assessment | PRMBENCH | Simplicity54.65 | 5 | |
| Computation Cost Analysis | Reasoning Samples 10K | Time Ratio0.16 | 4 |