Zelin Tan, Zhouliang Yu, Bohan Lin, Zijie Geng, Hejia Geng, Yudong Zhang, Mulei Zhang, Yang Chen, Shuyue Hu, Zhenfei Yin, Chen Zhang, Lei Bai
No strong AI-core implementation/artifact signals were detected from current providers.
We propose Process-Aware Policy Optimization (PAPO), a method that integrates process-level evaluation into Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) through decoupled advantage normalization, to address two limitations of existing reward designs. Outcome reward models (ORM) evaluate only final-answer correctness, treating all correct responses identically regardless of reasoning quality, and gradually lose the advan ...
tage signal as groups become uniformly correct. Process reward models (PRM) offer richer supervision, but directly using PRM scores causes reward hacking, where models exploit verbosity to inflate scores while accuracy collapses. PAPO resolves both by composing the advantage from an outcome component Aout, derived from ORM and normalized over all responses, and a process component Aproc, derived from a rubric-based PRM and normalized exclusively among correct responses. This decoupled design ensures that Aout anchors training on correctness while Aproc differentiates reasoning quality without distorting the outcome signal. Experiments across multiple model scales and six benchmarks demonstrate that PAPO consistently outperforms ORM, reaching 51.3% vs.\ 46.3% on OlympiadBench while continuing to improve as ORM plateaus and declines.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
We propose Process-Aware Policy Optimization (PAPO), a method that integrates process-level evaluation into Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) through decoupled advantage normalization, to address two limitations of existing reward designs.
This is primarily a method paper. Reproduce it within a maintained framework baseline instead of chasing paper-specific repos.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 55/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
No verified implementation available
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXNeed human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.