Complex multi-step reasoning tasks, such as solving mathematical problems, remain challenging for large language models (LLMs). While outcome supervision is commonly used, process supervision via process reward models (PRMs) provides intermediate rewards to verify step-wise correctness in solution traces. However, as proxies for human judgement, PRMs suffer from reliability issues, including susceptibility to reward hacking. In this work, we propose leveraging uncertainty quantification (UQ) to enhance the reliability of step-wise verification with generative reward models for mathematical reasoning tasks. We introduce CoT Entropy, a novel UQ method that outperforms existing approaches in quantifying a PRM's uncertainty in step-wise verification. Our results demonstrate that incorporating uncertainty estimates improves the robustness of judge-LM PRMs, leading to more reliable verification.

Reward models (RM) play a critical role in aligning language models through the process of reinforcement learning from human feedback. RMs are trained to predict a score reflecting human preference, which requires significant time and cost for human annotation. Additionally, RMs tend to quickly overfit on superficial features in the training set, hindering their generalization performance on unseen distributions. We propose a novel approach using synthetic natural language critiques generated by large language models to provide additional feedback, evaluating aspects such as instruction following, correctness, and style. This offers richer signals and more robust features for RMs to assess and score on. We demonstrate that high-quality critiques improve the performance and data efficiency of RMs initialized from different pretrained models. Conversely, we also show that low-quality critiques negatively impact performance. Furthermore, incorporating critiques enhances the interpretability and robustness of RM training.