| | --- |
| | library_name: transformers |
| | tags: |
| | - reward-model |
| | - prm |
| | - generative reward model |
| | - process supervision |
| | - chain-of-thought |
| | - verification |
| | - math reasoning |
| | - code verification |
| | license: apache-2.0 |
| | pipeline_tag: text-generation |
| | --- |
| | |
| | # Model Card for ThinkPRM-14B |
| |
|
| | ThinkPRM-14B is a generative Process Reward Model (PRM) based on the R1-Distill-Qwen-14B architecture. It is fine-tuned to perform step-by-step verification of reasoning processes (like mathematical solutions) by generating an explicit verification chain-of-thought (CoT) that involves labeling every step. It is designed to be highly data-efficient, requiring significantly less supervision data than traditional discriminative PRMs while achieving strong performance. |
| |
|
| | Here's an example of the model output: |
| |
|
| |
|
| | ## Model Details |
| |
|
| | ### Model Description |
| |
|
| | ThinkPRM-14B provides step-level verification scores by generating natural language critiques and correctness judgments for each step in a given solution prefix. It leverages the underlying reasoning capabilities of the base Large Reasoning Model (LRM) and enhances them through fine-tuning on a small (1K examples) dataset of synthetically generated verification CoTs. These synthetic CoTs were produced by prompting QwQ-32B-Preview and filtered against ground-truth step labels from the PRM800K dataset to ensure quality. |
| |
|
| | The model uses a standard language modeling objective, making it interpretable and allowing it to scale process verification compute by generating longer or multiple verification CoTs. It demonstrated superior performance compared to LLM-as-a-judge and discriminative PRM baselines (based on the same R1-Distill-Qwen-14B model but trained on ~100x more labels) on benchmarks including ProcessBench, MATH-500, AIME '24, GPQA-Diamond, and LiveCodeBench. |
| |
|
| | - **Finetuned from model [optional]:** [R1-Distill-Qwen-14B](https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B) |
| |
|
| | ### Model Sources [optional] |
| |
|
| | - **Repository:** [Github](https://github.com/mukhal/thinkprm) |
| | - **Paper:** [Process Reward Models that Think (arXiv:2504.16828)](https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16828) |
| |
|
| |
|
| | ### Direct Use |
| |
|
| | ThinkPRM-14B is intended for verifying the correctness of step-by-step reasoning processes. Primary uses include: |
| | - **Scoring Solutions:** Assigning step-level or overall scores to candidate solutions for ranking in Best-of-N sampling or guiding tree search in reasoning tasks. |
| | - **Generating Verification Rationales/CoTs:** Producing detailed chain-of-thought verifications that explain *why* a particular step is correct or incorrect, aiding interpretability. |
| | - **Standalone Verification:** Evaluating the correctness of a given problem-solution pair. |
| |
|
| | The model has been evaluated on mathematical reasoning (MATH, AIME), scientific QA (GPQA), and code generation (LiveCodeBench). See our paper for more details. |
| |
|
| | ## Limitations |
| |
|
| | - **Overconfidence:** Generative PRMs like ThinkPRM can sometimes produce scores clustered near 0 or 1, potentially not reflecting true uncertainty |
| | - **Step Label Interference:** The autoregressive nature might cause an early incorrect step judgment to negatively bias the evaluation of subsequent steps. |
| | - **Sensitivity to Formatting/Prompting:** Performance might be sensitive to the exact format of the input solution and the prompt used for verification (though fine-tuning likely reduces this compared to LLM-as-a-judge). |
| |
|
| | ## How to Get Started with the Model |
| | ```python |
| | from transformers import AutoModelForCausalLM, AutoTokenizer |
| | from vllm import LLM, SamplingParams |
| | |
| | model_id = "launch/ThinkPRM-14B" # Replace with actual model ID on Hub |
| | tokenizer = AutoTokenizer.from_pretrained(model_id) |
| | llm = LLM(model=model_id, max_model_len=16384) |
| | |
| | # Example problem and solution |
| | problem = "Solve for x: 2x + 3 = 7" |
| | prefix = "Step 1: Subtract 3 from both sides: 2x = 4 |
| | Step 2: Divide by 2: x = 1" |
| | |
| | # Format the prompt |
| | prompt = f"""You are given a math problem and a proposed step-by-step solution: |
| | |
| | [Math Problem] |
| | |
| | {problem} |
| | |
| | [Solution] |
| | |
| | {prefix} |
| | |
| | Review and critique each step in the proposed solution to determine whether each step is correct. If the solution is incomplete, only verify the provided steps |
| | """ |
| | |
| | prompt = tokenizer.apply_chat_template([ |
| | {'role': "user", "content": prompt} |
| | ], tokenize=False, add_generation_prompt=True) + " |
| | Let's verify step by step:" |
| | |
| | # Set sampling parameters |
| | sampling_params = SamplingParams( |
| | temperature=0.0, |
| | max_tokens=4096, |
| | stop=None |
| | ) |
| | |
| | # Generate the verification |
| | outputs = llm.generate(prompt, sampling_params) |
| | verification_cot = outputs[0].outputs[0].text |
| | |
| | print(verification_cot) |
| | """ |
| | Step 1: Subtract 3 from both sides: 2x = 4 |
| | |
| | Critique: Starting with the equation 2x + 3 = 7, subtracting 3 from both sides is a correct operation to isolate the term with the variable. So, 2x + 3 - 3 = 7 - 3, which simplifies |
| | to 2x = 4. This step seems correct. |
| | |
| | Step 2: Divide by 2: x = 1 |
| | |
| | Critique: Now, to solve for x, we need to divide both sides of the equation by 2. So, 2x / 2 = 4 / 2, which simplifies to x = 2. Wait a minute, the solution says x = 1, but accordin |
| | g to this calculation, it should be x = 2. This seems incorrect. |
| | |
| | Therefore, the first step is correct, but the second step has an error. |
| | |
| | **Final Output:** |
| | |
| | Let's verify step by step: |
| | |
| | Step 1: Subtract 3 from both sides: 2x = 4 |
| | |
| | Critique: This step is correct. Subtracting 3 from both sides of the equation 2x + 3 = 7 properly isolates the term with the variable, resulting in 2x = 4. |
| | |
| | Step 1 is \boxed{correct} |
| | |
| | Step 2: Divide by 2: x = 1 |
| | |
| | Critique: This step is incorrect. Dividing both sides of the equation 2x = 4 by 2 should yield x = 2, not x = 1. |
| | |
| | Step 2 is \boxed{incorrect} |
| | </think> |
| | Is the solution correct? No |
| | """ |