# Reward Models Identify Consistency, Not Causality

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14619 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14619/

## Key facts

- Cited by 6 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 36 of its 55 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Feb 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Reward modeling and RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/reward-modeling-and-rlhf/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 36)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.14168/) (2021)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.03874/) (2021)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [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)
- [Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.05530/) (2024)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [OlympiadBench: A Challenging Benchmark for Promoting AGI with Olympiad-Level Bilingual Multimodal Scientific Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14008/) (2024)
- [Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12122/) (2024)
- [Large Language Monkeys: Scaling Inference Compute with Repeated Sampling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21787/) (2024)
- [DeepSeek-V3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.19437/) (2024)
- [Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15217/) (2023)
- [AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14387/) (2023)
- [RAFT: Reward rAnked FineTuning for Generative Foundation Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06767/) (2023)
- [Improve Mathematical Reasoning in Language Models by Automated Process Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06592/) (2024)
- [SLiC-HF: Sequence Likelihood Calibration with Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10425/) (2023)
- [RLHF Workflow: From Reward Modeling to Online RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.07863/) (2024)
- [KTO: Model Alignment as Prospect Theoretic Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.01306/) (2024)
- [Direct Language Model Alignment from Online AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04792/) (2024)
- [Nash Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.00886/) (2023)
- [Sycophancy to Subterfuge: Investigating Reward-Tampering in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10162/) (2024)
- [Solving Challenging Math Word Problems Using GPT-4 Code Interpreter with Code-based Self-Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07921/) (2023)
- [AlphaMath Almost Zero: Process Supervision without Process](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.03553/) (2024)
- [Generalized Preference Optimization: A Unified Approach to Offline Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05749/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [VerifyBench: Benchmarking Reference-based Reward Systems for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.15801/) (2025)
- [Reward Under Attack: Analyzing the Robustness and Hackability of Process Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.06621/) (2026)
- [Self-Evaluating LLMs for Multi-Step Tasks: Stepwise Confidence Estimation for Failure Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.07364/) (2025)
- [Distributional Biases in Post-Training: A Markovian Analysis of Reasoning Trajectories](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.07368/) (2025)
- [EQA-RM: A Generative Embodied Reward Model with Test-time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.10389/) (2025)
- [What do Reward Models Memorize?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.24484/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reward models (RMs) play a crucial role in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences and enhancing reasoning quality. Traditionally, RMs are trained to rank candidate outputs based on their correctness and coherence. However, in this work, we present several surprising findings that challenge common assumptions about RM behavior. Our analysis reveals that state-of-the-art reward models prioritize structural consistency over causal correctness. Specifically, removing the problem statement has minimal impact on reward scores, whereas altering numerical values or disrupting the reasoning flow significantly affects RM outputs. Furthermore, RMs exhibit a strong dependence on complete reasoning trajectories truncated or incomplete steps lead to significant variations in reward assignments, indicating that RMs primarily rely on learned reasoning patterns rather than explicit problem comprehension. These findings hold across multiple architectures, datasets, and tasks, leading to three key insights: (1) RMs primarily assess coherence rather than true reasoning quality; (2) The role of explicit problem comprehension in reward assignment is overstated; (3) Current RMs may be more effective at ranking responses than verifying logical validity. Our results suggest a fundamental limitation in existing reward modeling approaches, emphasizing the need for a shift toward causality-aware reward models that go beyond consistency-driven evaluation.