From to : Multidimensional Supervision of Reasoning Process for LLM Optimization

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.11457
• Title: From to : Multidimensional Supervision of Reasoning Process for LLM Optimization
• Authors: Beining Wang, Weihang Su, Hongtao Tian, Tao Yang, Yujia Zhou, Ting Yao, Qingyao Ai, Yiqun Liu
• Category: cs.AI
• Publication Date: October 13, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.11457

Abstract

Enhancing the multi-step reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) is a critical yet challenging task. The mainstream paradigm—reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR)—only rewards correct final answers, frequently propagating flawed reasoning and suffering from sparse reward signals. While process-level reward models (PRMs) provide denser step-by-step feedback, they lack generalizability and interpretability, requiring task-specific reasoning process segmentation. To address this, the authors propose the Dimensional-level Reward Model (DRM), a novel supervision framework bridging these two approaches. DRM assesses the quality of reasoning processes along three fundamental, complementary, and interpretable dimensions: confidence (uncertainty calibration), relevance (semantic alignment), and coherence (logical consistency). These dimensions collectively capture aspects beyond final answer correctness, enabling interpretable evaluation without requiring ground-truth answers. Experimental results demonstrate that DRM provides effective supervision signals to guide LLM optimization and enhance reasoning capabilities.

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Definition

The core challenge facing current LLMs in multi-step reasoning tasks is: how to effectively supervise and optimize the quality of reasoning processes, rather than focusing solely on final answer correctness.

Limitations of Existing Approaches

1. Issues with RLVR:
   • Binary rewards based only on final answer correctness, ignoring reasoning process quality
   • May reward "correct answer but flawed reasoning" scenarios
   • Reward signals tend toward constants when models are too strong or too weak, limiting guidance effectiveness
2. Limitations of PRMs:
   • Require segmenting reasoning processes into discrete steps, which is often task-specific
   • Lack generalizability, difficult to adapt to open-domain tasks
   • Function as black-box evaluators, lacking interpretability

Research Motivation

The authors observe that high-quality reasoning processes should possess three key characteristics: maintaining certainty about outputs, grounding in given inputs, and maintaining internal consistency. Based on this insight, they propose a multidimensional supervision framework.

Core Contributions

1. Proposes DRM Framework: First to decompose reasoning supervision into three complementary dimensions (confidence, relevance, coherence), providing dense and interpretable supervision signals
2. Addresses Existing Limitations: Avoids RLVR's sparse reward problem and PRMs' task-specific segmentation requirements
3. Achieves Significant Performance Improvements: Consistent gains across multiple open-domain tasks, such as MATH500 (+8.8), 2WIKI RAG (+8.7), CRUXEVAL (+7.1)
4. Provides Theoretical and Practical Insights: Demonstrates that multidimensional reasoning supervision improves LLMs' generalization beyond training distribution

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Formal definition: Given input I, model output O is decomposed into reasoning process R and answer A. In open-domain scenarios, I contains question Q and additional information D. The entire input-output structure is represented as a quadruple: (Q, D, R, A).

DRM Three-Dimensional Framework

1. Confidence Dimension

Objective: Assess model certainty about its output Implementation:

scoreConf_R = (1/|R|) * Σ log p  (average log probability of all tokens in R)
scoreConf_A = Σ log p  (sum of log probabilities of all tokens in A)
scoreConf = scoreConf_R + scoreConf_A

2. Relevance Dimension

Objective: Assess semantic relationships between reasoning process and other components Implementation: Evaluate three relationships

• Q→R: Through natural language inference (NLI) entailment
• R↔D: Through semantic similarity measures
• R→A: Through NLI entailment

3. Coherence Dimension

Objective: Assess logical consistency and text quality of reasoning process Implementation: Use external outcome-level reward model (ORM) to evaluate logical consistency, fluency, and overall text quality

Integrated Reward Calculation

R^DRM_i = Σ_D w_D * s̃core^D_i

where D ∈ {Conf, Rel, Coh}, s̃core^D_i is the normalized dimensional score, and weights are determined through grid search on validation set.

Optimization Strategies

Off-Policy Optimization (DPO)

L_DPO(θ) = -E[(I,O+,O-)] [log σ(β log π_θ(O+|I)/π_ref(O+|I) - β log π_θ(O-|I)/π_ref(O-|I))]

where O+ = argmax RDRM, O- = argmin RDRM

On-Policy Optimization (GRPO)

Combine DRM advantage with native GRPO advantage:

A_i,t = Â_i,t + Â^DRM_i,t

Experimental Setup

Models

• LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct: Base model lacking inherent reasoning capabilities
• R1-Distil-Llama8B: Specialized reasoning model
• Qwen3-8B: Hybrid reasoning model

Datasets

Covering 17 open-domain tasks:

• Code Tasks: CodeMMLU, CodeScope, Cruxeval, Execution-v2
• Preference Tasks: RM-Bench, UltraFeedback
• Math Tasks: AIME24, AMC23, GSM8K, Math500
• Science QA: MMLU-Pro, GPQA
• Logical Reasoning: MuSR, DROP, QASC
• QA and RAG: 2WikiMultihopQA, HotpotQA and their RAG variants

Evaluation Metrics

• Math tasks: MATH-VERIFY automatic solution verification
• Other tasks: Exact Match (EM)

Experimental Results

Main Results

RQ1: Can DRM reliably determine final answer correctness?

Results on RewardBench 2 show DRM consistently achieves higher accuracy than random sampling:

• LLaMA3.1-8B-Instruct: 78.57% vs 67.17%
• R1-Distil-Llama8B: 76.16% vs 63.46%
• Qwen3-8B: 85.65% vs 84.87%

RQ2&RQ3: Effectiveness of DRM Supervision

Off-policy DPO training results show DRM@ANY consistently outperforms RLVR@T+F:

RQ4: Effects of Combining RLVR and DRM

On-policy GRPO training shows combined methods typically perform best or comparably to single best methods.

Ablation Studies

Single-dimensional supervision experiments reveal:

• Individual dimensions show improvements on some tasks but may decline on others
• No single dimension suffices for robust improvements across all tasks
• Multidimensional combination produces synergistic effects, achieving broader consistent gains

Case Analysis

GPT-4o evaluation shows DRM supervision significantly reduces instances of "correct answer but flawed reasoning," demonstrating that DRM preferentially selects instances with higher reasoning quality.

Related Work

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR)

RLVR effectively improves LLM reasoning capabilities by using automatically verifiable correctness signals as rewards, but suffers from sparse rewards and neglects reasoning process quality.

Reward Models

• Outcome-level Reward Models (ORMs): Assess overall response quality but may assign high scores to correct answers obtained through flawed reasoning
• Process-level Reward Models (PRMs): Evaluate reasoning processes rather than just final answers, but require task-specific step segmentation

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. DRM provides effective supervision signals to guide LLM optimization and enhance reasoning capabilities
2. Multidimensional reasoning supervision achieves consistent improvements on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution tasks
3. DRM successfully addresses key limitations of RLVR and PRMs

Limitations

1. Weight configuration requires grid search on validation set, potentially limiting cross-domain generalization
2. Relies on external models for relevance and coherence assessment, increasing computational overhead
3. On certain reasoning-intensive or knowledge-intensive tasks, direct RLVR may interfere with optimization

Future Directions

1. Explore adaptive weight adjustment mechanisms
2. Investigate more efficient dimensional assessment methods
3. Extend to additional reasoning dimensions and task types

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Novelty: First to propose dimensional-level reasoning supervision, filling the gap between RLVR and PRMs
2. Solid Theoretical Foundation: Framework designed based on three core characteristics of high-quality reasoning
3. Comprehensive Experiments: Validated on 17 diverse tasks spanning multiple domains
4. Good Interpretability: Three dimensions possess clear semantic meanings and interpretability
5. High Practical Value: Achieves improvements without requiring task-specific data or training

Weaknesses

1. Computational Overhead: Requires multiple external models for dimensional assessment, increasing inference costs
2. Weight Sensitivity: Optimal weight configurations differ across models, potentially affecting generalization
3. Assessment Dependency: Relevance and coherence assessment depend on external model quality
4. Insufficient Theoretical Analysis: Lacks theoretical justification for why these three dimensions are optimal

Impact

1. Academic Contribution: Provides new research direction and framework for reasoning supervision
2. Practical Value: Directly applicable to existing LLM training pipelines
3. Reproducibility: Code and datasets are publicly available, facilitating reproduction and extension

Applicable Scenarios

1. Application scenarios requiring high-quality reasoning processes
2. Open-domain multi-step reasoning tasks
3. Scenarios lacking abundant annotated reasoning step data
4. Applications requiring interpretable reasoning evaluation

References

The paper cites important works in reasoning evaluation, reinforcement learning, and reward modeling, providing solid theoretical foundation and comparison baselines for this research.

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality research paper proposing an innovative multidimensional reasoning supervision framework that effectively addresses limitations of existing methods. The experimental design is comprehensive, results are convincing, and the work has significant theoretical and practical value for enhancing LLM reasoning capabilities.