Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 52 references

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

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Editing pointwise reward scores to obey pairwise-preference partial orders eliminates score-pair reversals in a robot-reward training corpus and lifts a 4B open-weight model to within 0.13 points of a proprietary teacher.

desk verdict A well-specified label-cleaning recipe with an honest limitations section, but the paper's headline guarantees are either definitional or rest on an unverified assumption about pairwise labels. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08491 v1 pith:HF725U3H submitted 2026-08-09 cs.AI

Yidong Wang , Yan Zhan , Ziteng Feng , Zhenyu Cui , Ziyi Zhou , Renzhao Liang , Jiaxuan Zhu , Zilei Yang
show 11 more authors
Yiran Zhao Zhongkuan Mao Bo Jia Hanchu Ni Chenggang Xie Biao Liu Yi Zhang Yong Dai Xiaozhu Ju Wei Ye Shikun Zhang
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords rewardmodelsroboticmanipulationvision-languagepairwisepreferenceisotonicregressionpartialorderscore-pairconsistencymulti-paradigmsupervision
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

TrustRoboReward argues that a reward model for robotic manipulation improves most when the labels it trains on are internally consistent, not when the model is made bigger. The paper builds a four-paradigm corpus—pointwise trajectory scoring, pointwise video-question-answer scoring, and pairwise preference versions of both—and finds that 20.15% of score pairs contradict the pairwise preferences on the same videos. Its proposed method, POISE, reads the pairwise labels as a partial order and projects the pointwise scores onto the monotone cone of that order using the Pool-Adjacent-Violators Algorithm, so the edited corpus has zero reversal conflicts by construction and, under one consistency assumption, is provably closer to golden scores. A Qwen3-VL-4B student trained on the edited corpus scores 77.96 overall, only 0.13 below a proprietary teacher, 10.13 above the strongest open-weight single-paradigm baseline, and lifts score-pair consistency to 71.90%. If correct, label-side consistency cleaning offers a practical route to scalable robot reward models without handcrafted rewards or larger models.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is POISE (Preference-Ordered Isotonic Score Editing), a per-group, linear-time label-correction step. Pairwise labels are read as a partial order on the items of a group, a linear extension orders the items from worst to best, and chain isotonic regression finds the closest nondecreasing score sequence to the raw pointwise scores; the Pool-Adjacent-Violators Algorithm solves this exactly in time linear in the group size, and the real-valued solution is rounded half-up into the 1-to-5 integer scale. Chain monotonicity along the linear extension enforces partial-order monotonicity, so reversal conflicts vanish by construction, and the projection property of the solution yields the squared-error improvement stated in Theorem 1.

What would settle it

Construct one group of three robot videos where human annotators' golden scores contradict the Pair-A label, for example the label ranks A above B but humans consistently give B the higher score, run POISE on that group, and measure whether the squared distance from the edited scores to the human golden scores increases relative to the raw scores. Since Theorem 1 guarantees no increase only when the pairwise order matches the golden scores, a single group with increased error would falsify the universal version of the claim and show the assumption is violated in practice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that cross-paradigm score–preference conflicts, which occur when a video receives a high 1–5 pointwise score but loses in direct pairwise comparison, can be removed at the training-label level instead of merely smoothed at inference. POISE fixes the pairwise labels, orders each group of videos or answers along a linear extension of the induced partial order from worst to best, and solves chain isotonic regression on the raw pointwise scores, pooling adjacent violators until the corrected scores are nondecreasing along that chain. By construction this yields training-corpus reversal conflicts of exactly 0%, against 20.15% in the raw corpus and 20.46% under the earlier probabilistic aggregation method. Theorem 1 states that, when the pairwise order agrees with the golden scores, the real-valued isotonic projection is no farther from the golden scores than the raw scores and is strictly closer whenever the raw scores violate the order. Empirically, a 4B open-weight student trained on the edited corpus reaches 77.96 overall reward score—within 0.13 of the proprietary teacher and 10.13 above the strongest open-weight baseline—and reaches 71.90% test-time score-pair consistency.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the pairwise preference labels are trustworthy reflections of the true quality order and agree with the golden scores; if the pairwise labels are biased or wrong, POISE preserves and propagates that bias into the corrected pointwise scores, exactly as the paper's limitations section concedes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Training-corpus score-pair reversal conflicts fall from 20.15% to exactly 0%, removing opposing SFT and RL gradients caused by label contradiction.
  • A 4B open-weight reward model reaches 77.96 overall, within 0.13 points of a proprietary teacher and 10.13 points above the strongest open-weight baseline.
  • Test-time score-pair consistency reaches 71.90%, surpassing both the raw multi-paradigm baseline at 57.26% and the proprietary teacher at 68.09%.
  • Applying probabilistic aggregation at inference on top of the POISE-trained model lifts the overall score to 78.57%, above the teacher.
  • In the paper's embodied benchmark, policies optimized with the corrected reward signal win roughly 69% of human-judged paired comparisons against the single-paradigm baseline.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If pairwise labels remain at least as reliable as pointwise scores at larger candidate-group sizes, the same isotonic-editing step should transfer to any multi-paradigm judge pipeline beyond robotics, such as VQA answer scoring or general RLHF preference corpora where pointwise and pairwise labels coexist.
  • The paper's numbers suggest that supervision consistency may matter more than parameter count for reward models; a direct test would train a larger student on the raw versus the POISE corpus and check whether consistency cleaning reproduces or exceeds the reported 4B gains.
  • Because the theorem's guarantee is proven for the real-valued projection before round-half-up quantization, an exact discrete isotonic projection, which the paper notes is trivial for groups of at most three, would extend the monotone-improvement guarantee to the integer labels actually used in training.
  • Combining training-time POISE with inference-time aggregation beat each component alone on the overall score, suggesting that label-side correction and inference-side uncertainty modeling address different parts of the inconsistency problem; testing this pairing on preference graphs with many cycles would show where the division of labor breaks down.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes TrustRoboReward, a multi-paradigm reward-modeling framework for robot video evaluation. It constructs a four-paradigm distillation dataset (pointwise trajectory scoring, pointwise video-QA scoring, and their pairwise counterparts) and introduces POISE, an isotonic-projection step that edits pointwise scores to satisfy pairwise preference orders. The central technical claims are that POISE provably reduces training-corpus score-pair reversal conflicts from 20.15% to 0% and monotonically improves score quality (Theorem 1). The authors train Qwen3-VL-4B and Qwen3-VL-8B reward models and report that the 4B model reaches an overall score of 77.96, nearly matching the GPT-5-mini teacher (78.09), with further gains from inference-time TrustJudge aggregation.

Significance. If the assumptions behind Theorem 1 were verified, the paper would make a useful contribution: a simple, linear-time isotonic correction that enforces cross-paradigm consistency in multi-paradigm reward data, together with a concrete four-paradigm corpus and an open-weight 4B model that approaches a proprietary teacher. The manuscript includes reproducible assets (code link, full prompts, hyperparameters), and the proof of the conditional projection result is clean. However, the headline guarantees are conditional on an unverified pairwise-order-consistency assumption, the discrete-label gap between Theorem 1 and the deployed training targets is not closed, and the empirical results lack error bars; the significance is therefore real but currently conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Theorem 1, Remark 1] The score-quality guarantee in Theorem 1 relies on the assumption that the partial order induced by pairwise labels coincides with the golden-score order (i⪯j iff g_i ≤ g_j). This assumption is not verified on the training corpus, and Appendix A explicitly concedes that biased or incorrect pairwise labels will be preserved and propagated by POISE. The 20.15% of pairs that POISE actually rewrites are exactly the pairs where the pointwise scores disagree with the pairwise labels; if the pairwise label is wrong on such a pair, the projection moves the edited score away from the golden score. Consequently, the statement that POISE 'provably reduces reversal conflicts from 20.15% to 0%' is a constraint-satisfaction statement that holds by construction, not evidence of improved score quality. To support the substantive claim, the paper should report per-pair agreement between pairwise labels and golden scores on the conflict subset, or provide an analysis quantifying how label noise affects the projection's error.
  2. [§4.2, Table 1] Theorem 1 is proven for the real-valued isotonic projection ŝ′ before quantization, but the actual training targets are integer labels in {1,...,5}. The bound in Remark 1, ∥ŝ−g∥ ≤ ∥ŝ′−g∥ + √m/2, does not imply ∥ŝ−g∥ ≤ ∥s−g∥, so the claim that POISE monotonically improves score quality is not established for the discrete labels used in SFT/RL. The remark suggests an exact discrete projection as an alternative, but that projection is not what is deployed in the experiments. Either implement the exact discrete projection, or revise the claim to state a bounded-error guarantee rather than monotone improvement for the final integer labels.
  3. [§4.1, Metrics] The main experimental results appear to be single runs with no standard errors, confidence intervals, or significance tests. The surprising 4B-over-8B outcome (77.96 vs 77.46 for Ours) and the very small 0.13-point gap to GPT-5-mini may be within run-to-run noise. Please provide multiple seeds, error bars, or significance tests for the headline comparisons, and discuss the 4B-over-8B result explicitly if it is not an artifact of noise.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1] There are typographical issues in Algorithm 1's surrounding text: 'PA V A' has stray spaces, and 'ηcross = 0reversal-conflict' is missing a space; please clean these up.
  2. [Acknowledgments] The sentence 'that RoboReward lefts open' should read 'leaves open'.
  3. [Table 4] The acknowledgments section contains the instruction 'Donotinclude this section in the anonymized submission' with a missing space; since the manuscript is a preprint, this scaffolding text should be removed or corrected.
  4. [Figure 1] The subset-level heatmap is difficult to read in text form; consider highlighting the 'Ours' row or reporting numeric deltas relative to the strongest baseline.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Training-corpus 0% reversal-conflict guarantee is the POISE constraint itself; Theorem 1 is conditional on unverified pairwise-order correctness.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, 'Theoretical guarantee' paragraph (and Abstract)]
    "POISE therefore resolves limitation 2 of Section 1: by construction, the training-corpus reversal-conflict rate ηcross = 0 after one O(m) sweep per group with no additional teacher queries"

    η_cross is defined in Section 3.2 as the fraction of jointly-labeled pairs whose score-implied ordering disagrees with the pairwise label (e.g., v_ij=win ∧ s_i<s_j). POISE then solves Eq. (1): argmin Σ(s′_i − s_{r_i})² subject to s′_1 ≤ s′_2 ≤ … ≤ s′_m, where r is the chain order induced by the same pairwise labels. Any feasible solution therefore has zero score-implied disagreements with the pairwise order by definition, and Algorithm 1's Ensure clause literally states '(η_cross = 0 reversal-conflict on the training corpus)'. The advertised 'reduction from 20.15% to 0%' is thus the constraint that defines the output, not an empirical prediction or an independent theoretical finding.

full rationale

The zero-conflict claim is a genuine by-construction result: POISE enforces chain monotonicity along the pairwise order and then reports that the training corpus has zero violations, so this part of the central claim reduces to the algorithm's own constraint. However, the main empirical contributions are not circular: the benchmark comparisons (Table 1), the human Spearman correlation study, the test-time consistency metric, and the PAIBench-G optimization win rate are evaluated on held-out data against external baselines and do not depend on the definitional zero-conflict property. Theorem 1 is a valid conditional statement—under Assumption A2 (pairwise order equals golden-score order), metric projection onto the monotone cone reduces squared distance to g via a standard Pythagorean inequality. The caveat is that A2 is never verified, and Appendix A explicitly concedes: 'When pairwise labels are systematically biased or incorrect, POISE will preserve the biased order and may propagate the error into the edited pointwise scores.' This is a correctness and robustness limitation rather than a formal circularity, but it limits how strongly Theorem 1 can support the method. The self-citation to TrustJudge [26] is not load-bearing: TrustJudge is used as a baseline and an inference-time component, and no POISE claim depends on its correctness. Overall score 6 reflects one central 'prediction' (the training-corpus 0% reversal-conflict rate) that reduces by construction, while the external evaluations give the paper substantial independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework itself introduces no fitted parameters; its load-bearing assumptions are about the reliability of pairwise labels and the validity of the partial order. The '0% reversal' result is a construction, not an empirical finding.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Pairwise labels within each group induce a valid partial order on items.
    POISE requires a valid partial order; cycles occur in fewer than 1% of groups and are manually repaired (Section 3.2). If cycles were common, the algorithm would not produce a chain order.
  • domain assumption The pairwise order is consistent with the golden scores: i precedes j in the order iff g_i <= g_j.
    This is Assumption A2 in Theorem 1; it is required for the claim that isotonic projection improves score quality. The paper does not verify this on the training corpus and Appendix A concedes biased pairwise labels would propagate error.
  • domain assumption Pairwise preferences are a more reliable signal than pointwise scores for human judgment.
    Used to justify correcting pointwise scores to match pairwise labels. Supported by Figure 1 and prior work, but not proven across all robot tasks.
  • domain assumption Teacher labels from GPT-5-mini are suitable distillation targets for reward modeling.
    The entire corpus is generated by one proprietary teacher; no independent verification of label quality beyond human correlation on 1,000 test samples.
  • standard math PAVA solves chain isotonic regression exactly in O(m).
    Standard result from Ayer et al. (1955), cited as [48].
  • standard math Metric projection onto a closed convex set reduces distance to any point in the set.
    Lemma 1 in Appendix B, standard convex analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of TrustRoboReward: Preference-Ordered Isotonic Score Editing for Multi-Paradigm Robot Reward Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HF725U3H

@misc{pith2026260808491,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: TrustRoboReward: Preference-Ordered Isotonic Score Editing for Multi-Paradigm Robot Reward Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HF725U3H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08491}
}
read the original 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.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08491 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Calibration of score labels using POISE with pair preference signals corrects inconsistencies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Spearman ρ between reward-model judg￾ments and human annotations, broken down by output format. Dashed line: conventional strong￾correlation threshold ρ=0.50. Higher is better. Human-annotation correlation. To evaluate reward-model reliability beyond au￾tomatic metrics, we sample a subset of 1,000 random test instances with fine-grained human preference ratings to report the Spearman corre￾lation ρ with human prefer… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative case study across four reward-supervision views. We show representative examples from pointwise scoring and pairwise comparison tasks. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Case study comparison between our method and RoboReward on the task of picking up the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Eureka: Human-level reward design via coding large language models

    Yecheng Jason Ma, William Liang, Guanzhi Wang, De-An Huang, Osbert Bastani, Dinesh Jayaraman, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. Eureka: Human-level reward design via coding large language models. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Serl: A software suite for sample- efficient robotic reinforcement learning

    Jianlan Luo, Zheyuan Hu, Charles Xu, You Liang Tan, Jacob Berg, Archit Sharma, Stefan Schaal, Chelsea Finn, Abhishek Gupta, and Sergey Levine. Serl: A software suite for sample- efficient robotic reinforcement learning. In2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 16961–16969. IEEE, 2024

    2024

  3. [3]

    Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023

    Haotian Liu, Chunyuan Li, Qingyang Wu, and Yong Jae Lee. Visual instruction tuning.Advances in neural information processing systems, 36:34892–34916, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    Improving vision-language-action model with online reinforcement learning

    Yanjiang Guo, Jianke Zhang, Xiaoyu Chen, Xiang Ji, Yen-Jen Wang, Yucheng Hu, and Jianyu Chen. Improving vision-language-action model with online reinforcement learning. In2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), pages 15665–15672. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Robot-r1: Reinforcement learning for enhanced embodied reasoning in robotics

    Dongyoung Kim, Sumin Park, Huiwon Jang, Jinwoo Shin, Jaehyung Kim, and Younggyo Seo. Robot-r1: Reinforcement learning for enhanced embodied reasoning in robotics. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    work page

  6. [6]

    Reinforcement learning with foundation priors: Let embodied agent efficiently learn on its own

    Weirui Ye, Yunsheng Zhang, Haoyang Weng, Xianfan Gu, Shengjie Wang, Tong Zhang, Mengchen Wang, Pieter Abbeel, and Yang Gao. Reinforcement learning with foundation priors: Let embodied agent efficiently learn on its own. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 185–208. PMLR, 2025

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Self-improving embodied foundation models

    Seyed Kamyar Seyed Ghasemipour, Ayzaan Wahid, Jonathan Tompson, Pannag R Sanketi, and Igor Mordatch. Self-improving embodied foundation models. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems

    work page

  8. [8]

    Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences.Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Ne...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Roboreward: General-purpose vision-language reward models for robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.00675, 2026

    Tony Lee, Andrew Wagenmaker, Karl Pertsch, Percy Liang, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. Roboreward: General-purpose vision-language reward models for robotics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.00675, 2026

    2026

  3. [11]

    Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    Zhihong Shao, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Junxiao Song, Xiao Bi, Haowei Zhang, Mingchuan Zhang, YK Li, et al. Deepseekmath: Pushing the limits of mathematical reasoning in open language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.03300, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2501, 2025

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Ruoyu Zhang, Runxin Xu, Qihao Zhu, Shirong Ma, Peiyi Wang, Xiao Bi, et al. Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning.arXiv e-prints, pages arXiv–2501, 2025

    2025

  5. [13]

    rstar-math: Small llms can master math reasoning with self-evolved deep thinking

    Xinyu Guan, Li Lyna Zhang, Yifei Liu, Ning Shang, Youran Sun, Yi Zhu, Fan Yang, and Mao Yang. rstar-math: Small llms can master math reasoning with self-evolved deep thinking. In Forty-second International Conference on Machine Learning

  6. [14]

    Training software engineering agents and verifiers with swe-gym

    Jiayi Pan, Xingyao Wang, Graham Neubig, Navdeep Jaitly, Heng Ji, Alane Suhr, and Yizhe Zhang. Training software engineering agents and verifiers with swe-gym. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 47717–47737. PMLR, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? In The twelfth international conference on learning representations, 2023

    Carlos E Jimenez, John Yang, Alexander Wettig, Shunyu Yao, Kexin Pei, Ofir Press, and Karthik R Narasimhan. Swe-bench: Can language models resolve real-world github issues? In The twelfth international conference on learning representations, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Swe-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated software engineering.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:50528–50652, 2024

    John Yang, Carlos E Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Ofir Press. Swe-agent: Agent-computer interfaces enable automated software engineering.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:50528–50652, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    Openhands: An open platform for ai software developers as generalist agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16741, 2024

    Xingyao Wang, Boxuan Li, Yufan Song, Frank F Xu, Xiangru Tang, Mingchen Zhuge, Jiayi Pan, Yueqi Song, Bowen Li, Jaskirat Singh, et al. Openhands: An open platform for ai software developers as generalist agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16741, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks

    Zhe Chen, Jiannan Wu, Wenhai Wang, Weijie Su, Guo Chen, Sen Xing, Muyan Zhong, Qinglong Zhang, Xizhou Zhu, Lewei Lu, et al. Internvl: Scaling up vision foundation models and aligning for generic visual-linguistic tasks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer visi...

    2024

  12. [20]

    Qwen3-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025

    Shuai Bai, Yuxuan Cai, Ruizhe Chen, Keqin Chen, Xionghui Chen, Zesen Cheng, Lianghao Deng, Wei Ding, Chang Gao, Chunjiang Ge, et al. Qwen3-vl technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Manning, and Chelsea Finn

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. Direct preference optimization: Your language model is secretly a reward model. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I. the method of paired comparisons.Biometrika, 39(3/4):324–345, 1952

    1952

  15. [23]

    RLAIF vs

    Harrison Lee, Samrat Phatale, Hassan Mansoor, Thomas Mesnard, Johan Ferret, Kellie Lu, Colton Bishop, Ethan Hall, Victor Carbune, Abhinav Rastogi, and Sushant Prakash. RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling reinforcement learning from human feedback with AI feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309...

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Alpacaeval: An automatic evaluator of instruction-following models, 2023

    Xuechen Li, Tianyi Zhang, Yann Dubois, Rohan Taori, Ishaan Gulrajani, Carlos Guestrin, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. Alpacaeval: An automatic evaluator of instruction-following models, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human preference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04132, 2024

    Wei-Lin Chiang, Lianmin Zheng, Ying Sheng, Anastasios Nikolas Angelopoulos, Tianle Li, Dacheng Li, Hao Zhang, Banghua Zhu, Michael Jordan, Joseph E Gonzalez, et al. Chatbot arena: An open platform for evaluating llms by human preference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04132, 2024. 11

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Trustjudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-judge and how to alleviate them

    Yidong Wang, Yunze Song, Tingyuan Zhu, Xuanwang Zhang, Zhuohao Yu, Hao Chen, Chiyu Song, Qiufeng Wang, Zhen Wu, Xinyu Dai, Yue Zhang, Cunxiang Wang, Wei Ye, and Shikun Zhang. Trustjudge: Inconsistencies of LLM-as-a-judge and how to alleviate them. InThe Fourteenth Internationa...

    2026

  19. [27]

    Openai gpt-5 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267, 2025

    Aaditya Singh, Adam Fry, Adam Perelman, Adam Tart, Adi Ganesh, Ahmed El-Kishky, Aidan McLaughlin, Aiden Low, AJ Ostrow, Akhila Ananthram, et al. Openai gpt-5 system card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03267, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Pai-bench: A comprehensive benchmark for physical ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.01989, 2025

    Fengzhe Zhou, Jiannan Huang, Jialuo Li, Deva Ramanan, and Humphrey Shi. Pai-bench: A comprehensive benchmark for physical ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.01989, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    Llava-onevision: Easy visual task transfer.Transactions on Machine Learning Research

    Bo Li, Yuanhan Zhang, Dong Guo, Renrui Zhang, Feng Li, Hao Zhang, Kaichen Zhang, Peiyuan Zhang, Yanwei Li, Ziwei Liu, et al. Llava-onevision: Easy visual task transfer.Transactions on Machine Learning Research

  22. [30]

    Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P. Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Judging LLM-as-a-judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena. InAdvances in Neural Information Processi...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Prometheus-vision: Vision-language model as a judge for fine-grained evaluation

    Seongyun Lee, Seungone Kim, Sue Park, Geewook Kim, and Minjoon Seo. Prometheus-vision: Vision-language model as a judge for fine-grained evaluation. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pages 11286–11315, 2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with vision-language benchmark

    Dongping Chen, Ruoxi Chen, Shilin Zhang, Yinuo Liu, Yaochen Wang, Huichi Zhou, Qihui Zhang, Yao Wan, Pan Zhou, and Lichao Sun. MLLM-as-a-Judge: Assessing multimodal LLM-as-a-Judge with vision-language benchmark. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Lea...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Llava-critic: Learning to evaluate multimodal models

    Tianyi Xiong, Xiyao Wang, Dong Guo, Qinghao Ye, Haoqi Fan, Quanquan Gu, Heng Huang, and Chunyuan Li. Llava-critic: Learning to evaluate multimodal models. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 13618–13628, 2025

    2025

  26. [34]

    Generative reward models

    Dakota Mahan, Duy Van Phung, Rafael Rafailov, Chase Blagden, Nathan Lile, Louis Castricato, Jan-Philipp Frazier, Chris Cundy, Sumanth Dahl, and Avi Singh. Generative reward models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.12832, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    CompassJudger-1: All-in-one judge model helps model evaluation and evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16256, 2024

    Maosong Cao, Alexander Lyu, Songyang Zhang, Xinyu Liu, Mo Liu, Yingfan Liu, and Kai Chen. CompassJudger-1: All-in-one judge model helps model evaluation and evolution.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.16256, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Vision- language models are zero-shot reward models for reinforcement learning

    Juan Rocamonde, Victoriano Montesinos, Elvis Nava, Ethan Perez, and David Lindner. Vision- language models are zero-shot reward models for reinforcement learning. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

    2024

  29. [37]

    Rl-vlm-f: reinforcement learning from vision language foundation model feedback

    Yufei Wang, Zhanyi Sun, Jesse Zhang, Zhou Xian, Erdem Biyik, David Held, and Zackory Erickson. Rl-vlm-f: reinforcement learning from vision language foundation model feedback. InProceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 51484–51501, 2024

    2024

  30. [38]

    Vision- language models as a source of rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09187, 2023

    Kate Baumli, Satinder Baveja, Feryal Behbahani, Harris Chan, Gheorghe Comanici, Sebastian Flennerhag, Maxime Gazeau, Kristian Holsheimer, Dan Horgan, Michael Laskin, et al. Vision- language models as a source of rewards.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.09187, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    VisionReward: Fine-grained multi-dimensional human preference learning for image and video generation

    Jiazheng Xu, Yu Huang, Jiale Cheng, Yuanming Yang, Jiajun Xu, Yuan Wang, Wenbo Duan, Shen Yang, Qunlin Jin, Shurun Li, Jiayan Teng, Zhuoyi Yang, Wendi Zheng, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Xiaohan Zhang, Xiaotao Gu, Shiyu Huang, Minlie Huang, Jie Tang, and Yuxiao Dong. VisionReward: Fin...

    2026

  32. [40]

    Improving video generation with human feedback

    Jie Liu, Gongye Liu, Jiajun Liang, Ziyang Yuan, Xiaokun Liu, Mingwu Zheng, Xiele Wu, Qiulin Wang, Menghan Xia, Xintao Wang, et al. Improving video generation with human feedback. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 12

  33. [41]

    Smith, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi

    Nathan Lambert, Valentina Pyatkin, Jacob Morrison, LJ Miranda, Bill Yuchen Lin, Khyathi Chandu, Nouha Dziri, Sachin Kumar, Tom Zick, Yejin Choi, Noah A. Smith, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. RewardBench: Evaluating reward models for language modeling.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.13787, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Multimodal reward- bench: Holistic evaluation of reward models for vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14191, 2025

    Michihiro Yasunaga, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Marjan Ghazvininejad. Multimodal reward- bench: Holistic evaluation of reward models for vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14191, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Vl-rewardbench: a challenging benchmark for vision-language generative reward models

    Lei Li, Yuancheng Wei, Zhihui Xie, Xuqing Yang, Yifan Song, Peiyi Wang, Chenxin An, Tianyu Liu, Sujian Li, Bill Yuchen Lin, et al. Vl-rewardbench: a challenging benchmark for vision-language generative reward models. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition...

    2025

  36. [44]

    Simpo: Simple preference optimization with a reference-free reward.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:124198–124235, 2024

    Yu Meng, Mengzhou Xia, and Danqi Chen. Simpo: Simple preference optimization with a reference-free reward.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:124198–124235, 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Aligning with human judgement: The role of pairwise preference in large language model evaluators

    Yinhong Liu, Han Zhou, Zhijiang Guo, Ehsan Shareghi, Ivan Vuli´c, Anna Korhonen, and Nigel Collier. Aligning with human judgement: The role of pairwise preference in large language model evaluators. InFirst Conference on Language Modeling

  38. [46]

    Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073, 2022

    Yuntao Bai, Saurav Kadavath, Sandipan Kundu, Amanda Askell, Jackson Kernion, Andy Jones, Anna Chen, Anna Goldie, Azalia Mirhoseini, Cameron McKinnon, et al. Constitutional ai: Harmlessness from ai feedback.arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Meta-rewarding language models: Self-improving alignment with llm-as-a-meta-judge

    Tianhao Wu, Weizhe Yuan, Olga Golovneva, Jing Xu, Yuandong Tian, Jiantao Jiao, Jason E Weston, and Sainbayar Sukhbaatar. Meta-rewarding language models: Self-improving alignment with llm-as-a-meta-judge. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Lang...

    2025

  40. [48]

    An empirical distribution function for sampling with incomplete information.The annals of mathematical statistics, pages 641–647, 1955

    Miriam Ayer, H Daniel Brunk, George M Ewing, William T Reid, and Edward Silverman. An empirical distribution function for sampling with incomplete information.The annals of mathematical statistics, pages 641–647, 1955

    1955

  41. [49]

    Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners

    Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, Andrew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. Finetuned language models are zero-shot learners. In International Conference on Learning Representations

  42. [50]

    Swift: a scalable lightweight infrastructure for fine-tuning

    Yuze Zhao, Jintao Huang, Jinghan Hu, Xingjun Wang, Yunlin Mao, Daoze Zhang, Zeyinzi Jiang, Zhikai Wu, Baole Ai, Ang Wang, et al. Swift: a scalable lightweight infrastructure for fine-tuning. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 39, pages 2973...

    2025

  43. [51]

    Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework

    Guangming Sheng, Chi Zhang, Zilingfeng Ye, Xibin Wu, Wang Zhang, Ru Zhang, Yanghua Peng, Haibin Lin, and Chuan Wu. Hybridflow: A flexible and efficient rlhf framework. In Proceedings of the Twentieth European Conference on Computer Systems, pages 1279–1297, 2025

    2025

  44. [52]

    Pick up the yellow cup

    Arslan Ali, Junjie Bai, Maciej Bala, Yogesh Balaji, Aaron Blakeman, Tiffany Cai, Jiaxin Cao, Tianshi Cao, Elizabeth Cha, Yu-Wei Chao, et al. World simulation with video foundation models for physical ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00062, 2025. A Limitations TrustRoboReward relie...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.