# Reward Granularity in RLVR: Comparing Process and Outcome Reward Structures for Mathematical Reasoning in Small Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.02869 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.02869/

## 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 12 of its 12 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Jul 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reinforcement learning for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reinforcement-learning-for-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 12 of 12)

- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [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)
- [Qwen2 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10671/) (2024)
- [Language Models Don't Always Say What They Think: Unfaithful Explanations in Chain-of-Thought Prompting](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.04388/) (2023)
- [Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.14275/) (2022)
- [Language Models Are Greedy Reasoners: A Systematic Formal Analysis of Chain-of-Thought](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.01240/) (2022)
- [Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Implicitly Incentivizes Correct Reasoning in Base LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.14245/) (2025)
- [Beyond Verifiable Rewards: Scaling Reinforcement Learning for Language Models to Unverifiable Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19618/) (2025)
- [Local Coherence or Global Validity? Investigating RLVR Traces in Math Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.18176/) (2025)

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

- [Hallucination Across the Reasoning Lifecycle: Interface Visibility, Causal Evidence, and Release Control in Large Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.05472/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a promising paradigm for improving mathematical reasoning in language models. Yet most RLVR work rewards only the final answer (outcome-based rewards), leaving the impact of step-level process supervision (process rewards) underexplored especially for small models that lack the capacity to self-correct under sparse feedback. We systematically compare five reward conditions applied to Qwen2.5-0.5B fine-tuned with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) on GSM8K: a no-RL baseline, process-only, outcome-only, and three hybrid weightings (λ ∈ 0.9, 0.5, 0.1 process weight). Process-only supervision achieves 63.73% test accuracy versus 53.75% for outcome-only, a nearly 10-percentage point gap while yielding reasoning traces with higher step validity and lower deviation from ground-truth chain length. Hybrid rewards generally correlate positively with process weight, with one notable anomaly: the low-process / high-outcome configuration (λ=0.1) underperforms pure outcome supervision, suggesting conflicting optimization signals. Error analysis using GPT-4o as a judge reveals distinct failure mode distributions: process models generate structurally inconsistent but arithmetically grounded traces, while outcome models produce concise but derivation-error-prone chains. Our results demonstrate that reward granularity is a first-order design decision for RLVR, with process-level supervision substantially improving both accuracy and trace fidelity in small language models.