# Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Experts

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.12845 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12845/

## Key facts

- Cited by 376 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reward modeling and RLHF, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 49 of its 60 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2024.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Reward modeling and RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/reward-modeling-and-rlhf/)
- Mixture-of-experts / [MoE large language models](https://mlsanity.com/moe/moe-large-language-models/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 49)

- [PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.01703/) (2019)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [HuggingFace's Transformers: State-of-the-art Natural Language Processing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.03771/) (2019)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12036/) (2023)
- [BeaverTails: Towards Improved Safety Alignment of LLM via a Human-Preference Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.04657/) (2023)
- [Yi: Open Foundation Models by 01.AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.04652/) (2024)
- [RAFT: Reward rAnked FineTuning for Generative Foundation Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06767/) (2023)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [Reinforced Self-Training (ReST) for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.08998/) (2023)
- [RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13787/) (2024)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [SLiC-HF: Sequence Likelihood Calibration with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10425/) (2023)
- [Iterative Preference Learning from Human Feedback: Bridging Theory and Practice for RLHF under KL-Constraint](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.11456/) (2023)
- [Statistical Rejection Sampling Improves Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06657/) (2023)
- [Understanding Dataset Difficulty with V-Usable Information](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.08420/) (2021)
- [A Long Way to Go: Investigating Length Correlations in RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03716/) (2023)
- [RLHF Workflow: From Reward Modeling to Online RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.07863/) (2024)
- [Direct Language Model Alignment from Online AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04792/) (2024)
- [From r to Q^*: Your Language Model is Secretly a Q-Function](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.12358/) (2024)
- [Reward Model Ensembles Help Mitigate Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02743/) (2023)
- [Nash Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.00886/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 376)

- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [Skywork-Reward: Bag of Tricks for Reward Modeling in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18451/) (2024)
- [Skywork-Reward-V2: Scaling Preference Data Curation via Human-AI Synergy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.01352/) (2025)
- [VideoScore: Building Automatic Metrics to Simulate Fine-grained Human Feedback for Video Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15252/) (2024)
- [RM-R1: Reward Modeling as Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.02387/) (2025)
- [RewardBench 2: Advancing Reward Model Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01937/) (2025)
- [VisualPRM: An Effective Process Reward Model for Multimodal Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10291/) (2025)
- [OpenRubrics: Towards Scalable Synthetic Rubric Generation for Reward Modeling and LLM Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.07743/) (2025)
- [HelpSteer2-Preference: Complementing Ratings with Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.01257/) (2024)
- [Checklists Are Better Than Reward Models For Aligning Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18624/) (2025)
- [The Good, The Bad, and The Greedy: Evaluation of LLMs Should Not Ignore Non-Determinism](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10457/) (2024)
- [Taming Overconfidence in LLMs: Reward Calibration in RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.09724/) (2024)
- [Critique-out-Loud Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.11791/) (2024)
- [Is Best-of-N the Best of Them? Coverage, Scaling, and Optimality in Inference-Time Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.21878/) (2025)
- [The Hidden Risks of Large Reasoning Models: A Safety Assessment of R1](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12659/) (2025)
- [β-DPO: Direct Preference Optimization with Dynamic β](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.08639/) (2024)
- [How to Evaluate Reward Models for RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14872/) (2024)
- [Learning to Plan & Reason for Evaluation with Thinking-LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.18099/) (2025)
- [RRM: Robust Reward Model Training Mitigates Reward Hacking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.13156/) (2024)
- [J1: Incentivizing Thinking in LLM-as-a-Judge via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10320/) (2025)
- [Foundational Autoraters: Taming Large Language Models for Better Automatic Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.10817/) (2024)
- [Uncertainty-aware Reward Model: Teaching Reward Models to Know What is Unknown](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.00847/) (2024)
- [InternLM-XComposer2.5-Reward: A Simple Yet Effective Multi-Modal Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12368/) (2025)
- [What Makes a Reward Model a Good Teacher? An Optimization Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.15477/) (2025)
- [Self-Taught Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.02666/) (2024)
- [Self-Generated Critiques Boost Reward Modeling for Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16646/) (2024)
- [Reinforcement Learning Enhanced LLMs: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.10400/) (2024)
- [TICKing All the Boxes: Generated Checklists Improve LLM Evaluation and Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03608/) (2024)
- [BEST-Route: Adaptive LLM Routing with Test-Time Optimal Compute](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.22716/) (2025)
- [Adaptive Inference-Time Compute: LLMs Can Predict if They Can Do Better, Even Mid-Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02725/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has emerged as the primary method for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. The RLHF process typically starts by training a reward model (RM) using human preference data. Conventional RMs are trained on pairwise responses to the same user request, with relative ratings indicating which response humans prefer. The trained RM serves as a proxy for human preferences. However, due to the black-box nature of RMs, their outputs lack interpretability, as humans cannot intuitively understand why an RM thinks a response is good or not. As RMs act as human preference proxies, we believe they should be human-interpretable to ensure that their internal decision processes are consistent with human preferences and to prevent reward hacking in LLM alignment. To build RMs with interpretable preferences, we propose a two-stage approach: i) train an Absolute-Rating Multi-Objective Reward Model (ArmoRM) with multi-dimensional absolute-rating data, each dimension corresponding to a human-interpretable objective (e.g., honesty, verbosity, safety); ii) employ a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) strategy with a gating network that automatically selects the most suitable reward objectives based on the context. We efficiently trained an ArmoRM with Llama-3 8B and a gating network consisting of a shallow MLP on top of the ArmoRM. Our trained model, ArmoRM-Llama3-8B, obtains state-of-the-art performance on RewardBench, a benchmark evaluating RMs for language modeling. Notably, the performance of our model surpasses the LLM-as-a-judge method with GPT-4 judges by a margin, and approaches the performance of the much larger Nemotron-4 340B reward model.