Pith. sign in

REVIEW 9 cited by

RMB: Comprehensively Benchmarking Reward Models in LLM Alignment

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.09893 v2 pith:HCGP6Q36 submitted 2024-10-13 cs.CL

RMB: Comprehensively Benchmarking Reward Models in LLM Alignment

classification cs.CL
keywords alignmentevaluationmodelsrewardbenchmarkbettereffectivenessgenerative
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Reward models (RMs) guide the alignment of large language models (LLMs), steering them toward behaviors preferred by humans. Evaluating RMs is the key to better aligning LLMs. However, the current evaluation of RMs may not directly correspond to their alignment performance due to the limited distribution of evaluation data and evaluation methods that are not closely related to alignment objectives. To address these limitations, we propose RMB, a comprehensive RM benchmark that covers over 49 real-world scenarios and includes both pairwise and Best-of-N (BoN) evaluations to better reflect the effectiveness of RMs in guiding alignment optimization. We demonstrate a positive correlation between our benchmark and the downstream alignment task performance. Based on our benchmark, we conduct extensive analysis on the state-of-the-art RMs, revealing their generalization defects that were not discovered by previous benchmarks, and highlighting the potential of generative RMs. Furthermore, we delve into open questions in reward models, specifically examining the effectiveness of majority voting for the evaluation of reward models and analyzing the impact factors of generative RMs, including the influence of evaluation criteria and instructing methods. Our evaluation code and datasets are available at https://github.com/Zhou-Zoey/RMB-Reward-Model-Benchmark.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Boiling the Frog: A Multi-Turn Benchmark for Agentic Safety

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Boiling the Frog is a new stateful multi-turn benchmark that finds an aggregate 44.4% strict attack success rate for incremental safety violations across nine AI models, with rates ranging from 20.5% to 92.9%.

  2. Boiling the Frog: A Multi-Turn Benchmark for Agentic Safety

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Boiling the Frog is a new stateful multi-turn benchmark for agentic safety that reports an aggregate strict attack success rate of 44.4% across nine models, with rates ranging from 20.5% to 92.9% depending on the mode...

  3. RMGAP: Benchmarking the Generalization of Reward Models across Diverse Preferences

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    RMGAP benchmark shows state-of-the-art reward models reach at most 49.27% Best-of-N accuracy when forced to select responses matching diverse preferences.

  4. Personalized RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models with Human Aligned Personalization

    cs.CL 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Personalized RewardBench reveals that state-of-the-art reward models reach only 75.94% accuracy on personalized preferences and shows stronger correlation with downstream BoN and PPO performance than prior benchmarks.

  5. Personalized RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models with Human Aligned Personalization

    cs.CL 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    A new personalization benchmark shows reward models are only ~76% accurate at identifying user-specific preference, and its scores track downstream BoN/PPO quality better than prior benchmarks.

  6. AI Can Learn Scientific Taste

    cs.CL 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0

    Reinforcement learning on citation-preference pairs teaches a model to predict which papers will be cited more and to propose ideas that LLM judges rate as likely to be cited more—but "taste" here means citation impact.

  7. RewardBench 2: Advancing Reward Model Evaluation

    cs.CL 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    RewardBench 2 is a new benchmark that supplies challenging fresh human prompts for reward model evaluation, yielding lower average scores but higher correlation with downstream best-of-N sampling and RLHF training per...

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

    cs.LG 2026-02 conditional novelty 4.0

    A taxonomy-driven survey arguing that reward design is the central mechanism shaping reliable LLM reasoning, with maps of reward paradigms, reward-hacking failure modes, and benchmark pitfalls.

  9. Qwen2.5 Technical Report

    cs.CL 2024-12 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Qwen2.5 LLMs scale pre-training data to 18 trillion tokens and apply multistage reinforcement learning, achieving competitive performance on benchmarks with models up to 5 times larger.