# The Hidden Bias of Process Reward Models:PRISM for Rewarding the Right Reasoning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.09078 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.09078/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reinforcement learning for reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 25 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reinforcement learning for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reinforcement-learning-for-reasoning/)
- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Process reward models for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/process-reward-models-for-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [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)
- [OpenAI o1 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16720/) (2024)
- [Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12186/) (2024)
- [Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15124/) (2024)
- [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)
- [Improve Mathematical Reasoning in Language Models by Automated Process Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06592/) (2024)
- [The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.07301/) (2025)
- [Monitoring Reasoning Models for Misbehavior and the Risks of Promoting Obfuscation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.11926/) (2025)
- [JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17631/) (2023)
- [Inference Scaling Laws: An Empirical Analysis of Compute-Optimal Inference for Problem-Solving with Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.00724/) (2024)
- [Sycophancy to Subterfuge: Investigating Reward-Tampering in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10162/) (2024)
- [Process Reward Models That Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.16828/) (2025)
- [PRMBench: A Fine-grained and Challenging Benchmark for Process-Level Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.03124/) (2025)
- [GenPRM: Scaling Test-Time Compute of Process Reward Models via Generative Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.00891/) (2025)
- [RRM: Robust Reward Model Training Mitigates Reward Hacking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.13156/) (2024)
- [Towards Robust Alignment of Language Models: Distributionally Robustifying Direct Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.07880/) (2024)
- [Principled Data Selection for Alignment: The Hidden Risks of Difficult Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.09650/) (2025)
- [Bayesian Reward Models for LLM Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.13210/) (2024)
- [Reward-Robust RLHF in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.15360/) (2024)
- [Adversarial Training of Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.06141/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Auditing Proxy-Based Validation Across Text Spans](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.25808/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Process Reward Models (PRMs) improve credit assignment for reasoning by providing step-level feedback. However, we identify a hidden bias in PRMs caused by severe imbalance in step-level training data. Standard cross-entropy training amplifies this bias, causing PRMs to overcredit plausible but incorrect steps and produce high false-positive rates. We show that these false positives have an asymmetric downstream effect: false negatives mainly slow exploration, whereas false positives actively steer Best-of-N selection, guided decoding, and policy optimization toward flawed reasoning. This suggests that PRM training should shift from pointwise label fitting to reliable relative comparisons. To address this, we propose PRISM (Precision Ranking for Improved Step Modeling), a policy-aware PRM training framework that learns from contrastive step-level comparisons and hard negatives generated by a temporal lookahead strategy, requiring no new human labels. We further use a difficulty-aware curriculum to optimize the contrastive step margin. Across PRMBench and ProcessBench, PRISM substantially reduces false positives (22% on PRMBench) and improves macro F1 over strong discriminative PRMs. When applied to policy optimization and search tasks, including guided decoding and Best-of-N selection, it consistently improves accuracy (up to 22% for guided decoding and 33% for Best-of-N) and robustness. More broadly, trustworthy process supervision is not just about assigning high rewards, but about rewarding the right reasoning for the right reasons.