# Multi-Agent Collaborative Reward Design for Enhancing Reasoning in Reinforcement Learning

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.16202 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.16202/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Process reward models for reasoning, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 14 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Nov 2025.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Process reward models for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/process-reward-models-for-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [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: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.13971/) (2023)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [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)
- [ChatEval: Towards Better LLM-based Evaluators through Multi-Agent Debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.07201/) (2023)
- [AI safety via debate](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1805.00899/) (2018)
- [Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12845/) (2024)
- [Reward Model Ensembles Help Mitigate Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02743/) (2023)
- [Defining and Characterizing Reward Hacking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.13085/) (2022)
- [Critique-out-Loud Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.11791/) (2024)
- [Reinforcement Learning from Multi-role Debates as Feedback for Bias Mitigation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.10160/) (2024)

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

- [Quark Medical Alignment: A Holistic Multi-Dimensional Alignment and Collaborative Optimization Paradigm](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.11661/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We present CRM (Multi-Agent Collaborative Reward Model), a framework that replaces a single black-box reward model with a coordinated team of specialist evaluators to improve robustness and interpretability in RLHF. Conventional reward models struggle to jointly optimize multiple, sometimes conflicting, preference dimensions (e.g., factuality, helpfulness, safety) and offer limited transparency into why a score is assigned. CRM addresses these issues by decomposing preference evaluation into domain-specific agents that each produce partial signals, alongside global evaluators such as ranker-based and embedding-similarity rewards. A centralized aggregator fuses these signals at each timestep, balancing factors like step-wise correctness, multi-agent agreement, and repetition penalties, yielding a single training reward compatible with standard RL pipelines. The policy is optimized with advantage-based updates (e.g., GAE), while a value model regresses to the aggregated reward, enabling multi-perspective reward shaping without requiring additional human annotations beyond those used to train the evaluators. To support training and assessment, we introduce rewardBench, a benchmark and training suite aligned with the collaborative structure of CRM. Together, CRM and rewardBench provide a practical, modular path to more transparent reward modeling and more stable optimization.