# PRISM: A Unified Framework for Post-Training LLMs Without Verifiable Rewards

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.04700 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.04700/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Test-time compute and efficient thinking, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 20 of its 32 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Test-time compute and efficient thinking](https://mlsanity.com/lr/test-time-compute-and-efficient-thinking/)
- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Process reward models for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/process-reward-models-for-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 20 of 20)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.08593/) (2019)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [Learning to Reason without External Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19590/) (2025)
- [Scalable Best-of-N Selection for Large Language Models via Self-Certainty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.18581/) (2025)
- [The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Entropy Minimization in LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.15134/) (2025)
- [Free Process Rewards without Process Labels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.01981/) (2024)
- [Right Question is Already Half the Answer: Fully Unsupervised LLM Reasoning Incentivization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.05812/) (2025)
- [SEED-GRPO: Semantic Entropy Enhanced GRPO for Uncertainty-Aware Policy Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.12346/) (2025)
- [Can Large Reasoning Models Self-Train?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.21444/) (2025)
- [Model-based Preference Optimization in Abstractive Summarization without Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.18618/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [When Self-Belief Misleads: Active Label Acquisition for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.25864/) (2026)
- [PowerFlow: Unlocking the Dual Nature of LLMs via Principled Distribution Matching](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.18363/) (2026)
- [Negative Self-Distillation: Learning to Reason by Avoiding Flaws](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.11699/) (2026)
- [Know Thy Reasoner: Not All Language Models Explore Alike](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.10827/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Current techniques for post-training Large Language Models (LLMs) rely either on costly human supervision or on external verifiers to boost performance on tasks such as mathematical reasoning and code generation. However, as LLMs improve their problem-solving, any further improvement will potentially require high-quality solutions to difficult problems that are not available to humans. As a result, learning from unlabeled data is becoming increasingly attractive in the research community. Existing methods extract learning signal from a model's consistency, either by majority voting or by converting the model's internal confidence into reward. Although internal consistency metric such as entropy or self-certainty require no human intervention, as we show in this work, these are unreliable signals for large-scale and long-term training. To address the unreliability, we propose PRISM, a unified training framework that uses a Process Reward Model (PRM) to guide learning alongside model's internal confidence in the absence of ground-truth labels. We show that effectively combining PRM with self-certainty can lead to both stable training and better test-time performance, and also keep the model's internal confidence in check. Code available at https://github.com/ghimiremukesh/PRISM.