TrustRoboReward: Preference-Ordered Isotonic Score Editing for Multi-Paradigm Robot Reward Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.08491v1
• Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2026 05:25:22 GMT
• Title: TrustRoboReward: Preference-Ordered Isotonic Score Editing for Multi-Paradigm Robot Reward Models
• Abstract summary: We propose TrustRoboReward, a multi-paradigm reward modeling framework equipped with Preference-Ordered Isotonic Score Editing (POISE)<n>POISE rectifies pointwise scores and eliminates cross-paradigm reversal conflicts unresolved by TrustJudge.<n>Qwen3-VL-4B trained with POISE achieves an overall reward score of 77.96%, nearly matching GPT-5-mini (78.09%, gap 0.13%) and outperforming the strongest RoboReward-4B baseline by 10.13%.
• Score: 40.42873860258522
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Reward models are a bottleneck for reinforcement learning in embodied AI. Long-horizon robotic manipulation requires scalable vision feedback beyond handcrafted rewards or task-specific annotations. Existing open-source VLM reward judges like RoboReward adopt simple 1--5 trajectory progress scoring, lacking pairwise preferences for RLHF, DPO and Bradley-Terry frameworks, while failing to optimize video scene understanding. Augmenting RoboReward with pairwise comparison and video-QA supervision causes inconsistency between pairwise preferences and pointwise scores, introducing training noise and hurting downstream performance---an issue aggregation methods such as TrustJudge cannot resolve. To address this, we propose TrustRoboReward, a multi-paradigm reward modeling framework equipped with Preference-Ordered Isotonic Score Editing (POISE). We construct a unified four-paradigm dataset with trajectory progress scoring (Score-A), video-QA answer quality scoring (Score-B), and their pairwise counterparts (Pair-A, Pair-B). Pairwise labels align better with human judgment than pointwise scores, inspiring us to calibrate pointwise scores to avoid score-pair reversals against pairwise preferences. POISE rectifies pointwise scores and eliminates cross-paradigm reversal conflicts unresolved by TrustJudge. Theoretically, POISE reduces score-pair reversal conflicts from 20.15% to 0%, whereas TrustJudge retains 20.46% conflicts on the same corpus. Evaluated on our benchmark, Qwen3-VL-4B trained with POISE achieves an overall reward score of 77.96%, nearly matching GPT-5-mini (78.09%, gap 0.13%) and outperforming the strongest RoboReward-4B baseline by 10.13%. It also lifts test-time score-pair consistency to 71.90%, exceeding RoboReward-4B (57.26%) and GPT-5-mini (68.09%). Integrating TrustJudge aggregation during inference boosts the overall score to 78.57%, surpassing the GPT-5-mini teacher model.

Related papers

• Target-Checked Reliability Score Refinement for Video Question Answering [3.8271803328378677]
  We study whether answer-level reliability scores can be improved under target shift without retraining the models or changing their answers.<n>We collect option-probability lists from three fixed video-language models under four deterministic video samplings.<n>We compare the original score, defined as the probability assigned to the chosen answer, with a histogram-based gradient-boosting (HGB) score trained on the development datasets.<n>A candidate replaces the original score only when repeated video-level checks indicate a positive, stable improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T08:29:00Z)
• LLMs Can Predict Failure Risk, But Struggle to Predict Which Collaboration Protocol Pays Off: Cost-Aware Protocol Routing Across Reasoning Tasks [3.789882665982407]
  Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems can improve reasoning by spending more computation.<n>We isolate this decision by running every problem under four protocols while holding the solver fixed within each setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T22:35:37Z)
• Beyond Scalar Rewards by Internalizing Reasoning into Score Distributions [80.33276868889341]
  Z-Reward decouples reasoning-heavy judgment from efficient reward deployment.<n>We show that Z-Reward can serve as a differentiable reward signal for text-to-image optimization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-08T06:20:12Z)
• Let the Results Speak: A Replication-First Paradigm for LLM Behavioral Benchmarking [22.825786049667602]
  We propose a replication-first paradigm to anchor validity to a single human-rater consensus.<n>We certify the instrument via four properties -- reliability across K runs, cross-instrument replication across architecturally distinct judges, historical-footprint calibration via judges from earlier training cohorts, and pre-registered prediction.<n>We test it on emotional accompaniment by letting the self-evolve data-driven across: the dimensions are not pre-stipulated and the procedure stabilizes to a 9-dimension set.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-27T03:41:11Z)
• Step-wise Rubric Rewards for LLM Reasoning [72.17879367869503]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is widely used to improve reasoning in large language models.<n>We find 18.2% of steps in correct responses are wrong yet positively rewarded.<n>Across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks, SRaR improves average accuracy over RaR by 3.57 points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T07:08:14Z)
• Multi-Dimensional Behavioral Evaluation of Agentic Stock Prediction Systems Using Large Language Model Judges with Closed-Loop Reinforcement Learning Feedback [1.2362187555287152]
  Forecast evaluation in finance has relied on aggregate accuracy metrics and predictive-accuracy tests built on point-forecast errors.<n>We propose a behavioral forecast-evaluation methodology that complements accuracy tests by assessing the intermediate decision process itself.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T06:31:34Z)
• EdgeJury: Cross-Reviewed Small-Model Ensembles for Truthful Question Answering on Serverless Edge Inference [0.0]
  We present EdgeJury, a lightweight ensemble framework that improves truthfulness and robustness.<n>On TruthfulQA (MC1), EdgeJury achieves 76.2% accuracy.<n>On a 200-question adversarial EdgeCases set, EdgeJury yields +48.2% relative gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T14:48:40Z)
• CARE What Fails: Contrastive Anchored-REflection for Verifiable Multimodal [84.71254539482369]
  Group-relative reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) often wastes the most informative data it already has the failures.<n>We present CARE, a failure-centric post-training framework for multimodal reasoning that turns errors into supervision.<n> CARE improves accuracy and training smoothness while explicitly increasing the share of learning signal that comes from failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T16:34:21Z)
• Fortytwo: Swarm Inference with Peer-Ranked Consensus [36.94429692322632]
  We present Fortytwo, a novel protocol that leverages swarm intelligence principles and distributed pairwise ranking consensus to achieve superior performance in AI inference.<n>Using pairwise ranking with a custom Bradley-Terry-style aggregation model, we demonstrate that swarm inference substantially outperforms majority voting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T23:19:48Z)
• TrustJudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-Judge and How to Alleviate Them [58.04324690859212]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks.<n>We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: Score-Comparison Inconsistency and Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency.<n>We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-25T13:04:29Z)
• Anchored Preference Optimization and Contrastive Revisions: Addressing Underspecification in Alignment [57.03947082589616]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are often aligned using contrastive alignment objectives and preference pair datasets. We study this and find that preference data gives a better learning signal when the underlying responses are contrastive. We introduce Contrastive Learning from AI Revisions (CLAIR), a data-creation method which leads to more contrastive preference pairs. Our best model, trained on 32K CLAIR preferences with APO, improves Llama-3-8B-Instruct by 7.65%, closing the gap with GPT4-turbo by 45%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-12T16:24:51Z)

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.