# Establishing Reliability Metrics for Reward Models in Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.14838 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.14838/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 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 27 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 Apr 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, 27 of 27)

- [BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1810.04805/) (2018)
- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensembles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1612.01474/) (2016)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2204.05862/) (2022)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2112.09332/) (2021)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Open Problems and Fundamental Limitations of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.15217/) (2023)
- [RAFT: Reward rAnked FineTuning for Generative Foundation Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06767/) (2023)
- [RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13787/) (2024)
- [The Effects of Reward Misspecification: Mapping and Mitigating Misaligned Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.03544/) (2022)
- [A Long Way to Go: Investigating Length Correlations in RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03716/) (2023)
- [Reward Model Ensembles Help Mitigate Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02743/) (2023)
- [Helping or Herding? Reward Model Ensembles Mitigate but do not Eliminate Reward Hacking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.09244/) (2023)
- [WARM: On the Benefits of Weight Averaged Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.12187/) (2024)
- [X-Risk Analysis for AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.05862/) (2022)
- [The Alignment Ceiling: Objective Mismatch in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.00168/) (2023)
- [Monte Carlo Markov Chain Algorithms for Sampling Strongly Rayleigh Distributions and Determinantal Point Processes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.05242/) (2016)
- [On The Fragility of Learned Reward Functions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2301.03652/) (2023)
- [Efficient Sampling for k-Determinantal Point Processes](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1509.01618/) (2015)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [Inference-Time Reward Hacking in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.19248/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The reward model (RM) that represents human preferences plays a crucial role in optimizing the outputs of large language models (LLMs), e.g., through reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) or rejection sampling. However, a long challenge for RM is its uncertain reliability, i.e., LLM outputs with higher rewards may not align with actual human preferences. Currently, there is a lack of a convincing metric to quantify the reliability of RMs. To bridge this gap, we propose the textitunderlineReliable at underlineη (RETA) metric, which directly measures the reliability of an RM by evaluating the average quality (scored by an oracle) of the top η quantile responses assessed by an RM. On top of RETA, we present an integrated benchmarking pipeline that allows anyone to evaluate their own RM without incurring additional Oracle labeling costs. Extensive experimental studies demonstrate the superior stability of RETA metric, providing solid evaluations of the reliability of various publicly available and proprietary RMs. When dealing with an unreliable RM, we can use the RETA metric to identify the optimal quantile from which to select the responses.