Reward Models are Metrics in a Trench Coat

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.03231v1
• Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2025 17:59:44 GMT
• Title: Reward Models are Metrics in a Trench Coat
• Authors: Sebastian Gehrmann,
• Abstract summary: We find that the two research areas are mostly separate, leading to redundant terminology and repeated pitfalls.<n>Common challenges include susceptibility to spurious correlations, impact on downstream reward hacking, methods to improve data quality, and approaches to meta-evaluation.<n>Our position paper argues that a closer collaboration between the fields can help overcome these issues.
• Score: 8.100404050572996
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The emergence of reinforcement learning in post-training of large language models has sparked significant interest in reward models. Reward models assess the quality of sampled model outputs to generate training signals. This task is also performed by evaluation metrics that monitor the performance of an AI model. We find that the two research areas are mostly separate, leading to redundant terminology and repeated pitfalls. Common challenges include susceptibility to spurious correlations, impact on downstream reward hacking, methods to improve data quality, and approaches to meta-evaluation. Our position paper argues that a closer collaboration between the fields can help overcome these issues. To that end, we show how metrics outperform reward models on specific tasks and provide an extensive survey of the two areas. Grounded in this survey, we point to multiple research topics in which closer alignment can improve reward models and metrics in areas such as preference elicitation methods, avoidance of spurious correlations and reward hacking, and calibration-aware meta-evaluation.

Related papers

• Revisiting the Learning Objectives of Vision-Language Reward Models [19.768973349254285]
  Learning generalizable reward functions is a core challenge in embodied intelligence.<n>Recent work leverages contrastive vision language models (VLMs) to obtain dense, domain-agnostic rewards without human supervision.<n>We evaluate recent VLM-based reward models under a unified framework with identical backbones, finetuning data, and evaluation environments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-20T19:50:36Z)
• Probing Preference Representations: A Multi-Dimensional Evaluation and Analysis Method for Reward Models [63.00458229517523]
  This work addresses the evaluation challenge of reward models by probing preference representations.<n>We construct a Multi-dimensional Reward Model Benchmark (MRMBench), a collection of six probing tasks for different preference dimensions.<n>We introduce an analysis method, inference-time probing, which identifies the dimensions used during the reward prediction and enhances its interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-16T05:29:29Z)
• RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling [100.28366840977966]
  We present RewardBench, a benchmark dataset and code-base for evaluation of reward models. The dataset is a collection of prompt-chosen-rejected trios spanning chat, reasoning, and safety. On the RewardBench leaderboard, we evaluate reward models trained with a variety of methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-20T17:49:54Z)
• Secrets of RLHF in Large Language Models Part II: Reward Modeling [134.97964938009588]
  We introduce a series of novel methods to mitigate the influence of incorrect and ambiguous preferences in the dataset. We also introduce contrastive learning to enhance the ability of reward models to distinguish between chosen and rejected responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-11T17:56:59Z)
• Let's Reinforce Step by Step [10.65244642965387]
  We use Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback to shape model reasoning processes. Our results show that the fine-grained reward provided by PRM-based methods enhances accuracy on simple mathematical reasoning. We also show the critical role reward aggregation functions play in model performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-10T01:35:51Z)
• QualEval: Qualitative Evaluation for Model Improvement [82.73561470966658]
  We propose QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights. We demonstrate that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T00:21:44Z)
• Think Twice: Measuring the Efficiency of Eliminating Prediction Shortcuts of Question Answering Models [3.9052860539161918]
  We propose a simple method for measuring a scale of models' reliance on any identified spurious feature. We assess the robustness towards a large set of known and newly found prediction biases for various pre-trained models and debiasing methods in Question Answering (QA) We find that while existing debiasing methods can mitigate reliance on a chosen spurious feature, the OOD performance gains of these methods can not be explained by mitigated reliance on biased features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-11T14:35:00Z)
• Discover, Explanation, Improvement: An Automatic Slice Detection Framework for Natural Language Processing [72.14557106085284]
  slice detection models (SDM) automatically identify underperforming groups of datapoints. This paper proposes a benchmark named "Discover, Explain, improve (DEIM)" for classification NLP tasks. Our evaluation shows that Edisa can accurately select error-prone datapoints with informative semantic features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-08T19:00:00Z)
• Generalization Properties of Retrieval-based Models [50.35325326050263]
  Retrieval-based machine learning methods have enjoyed success on a wide range of problems. Despite growing literature showcasing the promise of these models, the theoretical underpinning for such models remains underexplored. We present a formal treatment of retrieval-based models to characterize their generalization ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-06T00:33:01Z)
• Models, Pixels, and Rewards: Evaluating Design Trade-offs in Visual Model-Based Reinforcement Learning [109.74041512359476]
  We study a number of design decisions for the predictive model in visual MBRL algorithms. We find that a range of design decisions that are often considered crucial, such as the use of latent spaces, have little effect on task performance. We show how this phenomenon is related to exploration and how some of the lower-scoring models on standard benchmarks will perform the same as the best-performing models when trained on the same training data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-08T18:03:21Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.