Reward Modeling for Reinforcement Learning-Based LLM Reasoning: Design, Challenges, and Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2602.09305v1
• Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2026 00:45:24 GMT
• Title: Reward Modeling for Reinforcement Learning-Based LLM Reasoning: Design, Challenges, and Evaluation
• Authors: Pei-Chi Pan, Yingbin Liang, Sen Lin,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate transformative potential, yet their reasoning remains inconsistent and unreliable.<n>This work argues that reward modeling is not merely an implementation detail but a central architect of reasoning alignment.<n>Within this framework, we present a taxonomy of reward mechanisms, analyze reward hacking as a pervasive failure mode, and examine how reward signals unify challenges.
• Score: 46.38008143057758
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate transformative potential, yet their reasoning remains inconsistent and unreliable. Reinforcement learning (RL)-based fine-tuning is a key mechanism for improvement, but its effectiveness is fundamentally governed by reward design. Despite its importance, the relationship between reward modeling and core LLM challenges--such as evaluation bias, hallucination, distribution shift, and efficient learning--remains poorly understood. This work argues that reward modeling is not merely an implementation detail but a central architect of reasoning alignment, shaping what models learn, how they generalize, and whether their outputs can be trusted. We introduce Reasoning-Aligned Reinforcement Learning (RARL), a unifying framework that systematizes diverse reward paradigms for multi-step reasoning. Within this framework, we present a taxonomy of reward mechanisms, analyze reward hacking as a pervasive failure mode, and examine how reward signals unify challenges ranging from inference-time scaling to hallucination mitigation. We further critically evaluate existing benchmarks, highlighting vulnerabilities such as data contamination and reward misalignment, and outline directions for more robust evaluation. By integrating fragmented research threads and clarifying the interplay between reward design and fundamental reasoning capabilities, this work provides a foundational roadmap for building reasoning models that are robust, verifiable, and trustworthy.

Related papers

• Native Reasoning Models: Training Language Models to Reason on Unverifiable Data [16.065264121785294]
  We introduce NRT (Native Reasoning Training), a novel framework that cultivates complex reasoning.<n>NRT reframes the training problem by treating the reasoning process as a latent variable.<n>NRT achieves state-of-the-art performance among verifier-free methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-12T04:15:46Z)
• Mitigating Reward Hacking in RLHF via Bayesian Non-negative Reward Modeling [49.41422138354821]
  We propose a principled reward modeling framework that integrates non-negative factor analysis into the Bradley-Terry preference model.<n>BNRM represents rewards through a sparse, non-negative latent factor generative process.<n>We show that BNRM substantially mitigates reward over-optimization, improves robustness under distribution shifts, and yields more interpretable reward decompositions than strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T08:14:11Z)
• Joint Reward Modeling: Internalizing Chain-of-Thought for Efficient Visual Reward Models [22.77769800361136]
  Generative reward models offer stronger semantic understanding and reasoning, but they are costly at inference time and difficult to align directly with human preferences.<n>We propose Joint Reward Modeling (JRM), which jointly optimize preference learning and language modeling on a shared vision-language backbone.<n>JRM achieves state-of-the-art results on MMRB2 and EditReward-Bench, and significantly improves stability and performance in downstream online reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-07T13:09:41Z)
• Confidence as a Reward: Transforming LLMs into Reward Models [54.98336080630691]
  Confidence-as-a-Reward (CRew) is a training-free method that utilizes token-level confidence in the model's final answers as a proxy for reward.<n>We show that CRew outperforms existing training-free reward approaches on the MATH500 and RewardMATH benchmarks.<n>We propose CRew-DPO, a training strategy that constructs preference data from confidence scores combined with correctness signals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-15T12:51:47Z)
• Unveiling Chain of Step Reasoning for Vision-Language Models with Fine-grained Rewards [48.55501117313608]
  We present chain of step reasoning for vision-language models, enabling assessing reasoning step quality accurately.<n>We present a simple, effective, and fully transparent framework, including the step-level reasoning data, process reward model (PRM), and reinforcement learning training.<n>We believe this paper serves as a baseline for vision-language models and offers insights into more complex multimodal reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-23T13:47:32Z)
• A Simple "Motivation" Can Enhance Reinforcement Finetuning of Large Reasoning Models [103.88578274567784]
  Motivation-enhanced Reinforcement Finetuning (MeRF) is an intuitive yet effective method enhancing reinforcement finetuning of Large Reasoning Models.<n>MeRF directly injects the reward specification into the prompt, which serves as an in-context motivation for the model to be aware of the optimization objective.<n>MeRF achieves substantial performance gains over RLVR baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-23T10:37:57Z)
• Trust, But Verify: A Self-Verification Approach to Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards [67.86091419220816]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise in complex reasoning.<n>A prevalent issue is superficial self-reflection'', where models fail to robustly verify their own outputs.<n>We introduce RISE (Reinforcing Reasoning with Self-Verification), a novel online RL framework designed to tackle this.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T17:59:31Z)
• Evaluating Robustness of Reward Models for Mathematical Reasoning [14.97819343313859]
  We introduce a new design for reliable evaluation of reward models, and to validate this, we construct RewardMATH. We demonstrate that the scores on RewardMATH strongly correlate with the results of optimized policy and effectively estimate reward overoptimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T16:39:58Z)

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.