179 questions
No questions match those filters.
In an RLVR pipeline for math or code, do you reward onl...
This is one of the questions in the full AI/ML interview bank. Pro unlocks all 1789 questions; Premium includes the same bank plus the highest daily Practice limit.
See plansAn outcome reward is a single scalar for the whole response — correct final answer or not — computed by something deterministic like symbolic equivalence checking or a test-suite run, at essentially zero cost and zero dependence on human judgment. A process reward model instead scores each intermediate reasoning step, giving gradient signal throughout the chain of thought rather than only at the end, which in principle should make credit assignment easier.
Outcome rewards win in production for reasons that trace back to one thing: a process reward model is itself a learned proxy, and learned proxies are exactly what RLVR was invented to escape. Annotating individual reasoning steps costs roughly an order of magnitude more than labeling final answers, since it needs step-level human judgment or a separately trained scorer — and that scorer can then be miscalibrated in both directions, penalizing correct-but-unusual reasoning paths or rewarding plausible-looking chains that don’t actually derive the answer, reintroducing the overoptimization risk outcome rewards were supposed to close off. Process reward models are also structurally hard to calibrate on long chains, since a step’s correctness can depend on what comes after it. The practical rule: use outcome rewards as the default, and reserve process supervision for the narrow cases where final-answer signal is too sparse to train against at all, such as very long multi-step proofs where nearly every rollout gets zero reward.