aiqbench analysis
This research introduces Verifiable Process Rewards (VPR), a framework that addresses credit assignment in long-horizon agentic tasks by converting task oracles into dense, action-level rewards. By applying this method to problems like Sokoban and Sudoku, the study demonstrates significant improvements in general reasoning capabilities for models such as Qwen3-4B compared to outcome-reward baselines. The work highlights a promising path forward for training robust agents, contingent on the availability of reliable symbolic or algorithmic verifiers.
Verifiable Process Rewards for Agentic Reasoning
arXiv:2605.10325v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) has improved the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), yet existing approaches predominantly rely on sparse outcome-level feedback, posing a substantial credit-assignment challenge in long-horizon agentic tasks. In this work, we study structured agentic reasoning problems that admit symbolic or algorithmic task-solving oracles. We propose Verifiable Process Rewards (VPR), a training framework that repurposes such task oracles as action-level process verifiers, providing dense rewards for intermediate actions and enabling fine-grained credit assignment. We instantiate VPR in three distinct settings: a search-based oracle for Sokoban, a constraint-based oracle for Sudoku, and a posterior-based oracle for Minesweeper. To optimize policies with these rewards, we introduce oracle-guided state-group rollout and locally normalized optimization. Empirically, VPR-trained Qwen3-4B outperforms outcome-reward GRPO and VinePPO across all three training environments. When jointly trained on math data and all three game environments, VPR achieves the highest average general-reasoning performance and strongest agentic results among the compared training configurations. To further assess its applicability to more general agentic tool-use settings, we apply VPR-style action-level supervision to $\tau^2$-bench using an expert LLM as a reference policy and observe improved performance over outcome-reward GRPO on held-out tasks. Together, these results position VPR as a promising approach for leveraging reliable task oracles to improve agentic reasoning, while highlighting its dependence on the availability and reliability of task oracles and the challenge of extending intermediate verification to less structured, open-ended environments.
Abstract:Reinforcement learning from verifiable rewards (RLVR) has improved the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs), yet existing approaches predominantly rely on sparse outcome-level feedback, posing a substantial credit-assignment challenge in long-horizon agentic tasks. In this work, we study structured agentic reasoning problems that admit symbolic or algorithmic task-solving oracles. We propose Verifiable Process Rewards (VPR), a training framework that repurposes such task oracles as action-level process verifiers, providing dense rewards for intermediate actions and enabling fine-grained credit assignment. We instantiate VPR in three distinct settings: a search-based oracle for Sokoban, a constraint-based oracle for Sudoku, and a posterior-based oracle for Minesweeper. To optimize policies with these rewards, we introduce oracle-guided state-group rollout and locally normalized optimization. Empirically, VPR-trained Qwen3-4B outperforms outcome-reward GRPO and VinePPO across all three training environments. When jointly trained on math data and all three game environments, VPR achieves the highest average general-reasoning performance and strongest agentic results among the compared training configurations. To further assess its applicability to more general agentic tool-use settings, we apply VPR-style action-level supervision to $\tau^2$-bench using an expert LLM as a reference policy and observe improved performance over outcome-reward GRPO on held-out tasks. Together, these results position VPR as a promising approach for leveraging reliable task oracles to improve agentic reasoning, while highlighting its dependence on the availability and reliability of task oracles and the challenge of extending intermediate verification to less structured, open-ended environments.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2605.10325 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2605.10325v3 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.10325 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 327 words
Related coverage

Why do models task game?
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 6, 2026
What's Continual Learning, and Why Might We Expect To See It In Advanced LLM Agents?
LessWrong · Jun 12, 2026

An unexamined cause of the OpenAI Hugging Face hacking incident: its binary performance metric
LessWrong · Sep 23, 2026
Towards embedded evaluations for scheming propensities
LessWrong · Oct 8, 2026