mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

When Distance Distracts: Representation Distance Bias in BT-Loss for Reward Models

arXiv 2512.06343 ↗First posted 6 Dec 2025cs.LG cs.AI cs.CLcited by 1

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Reward modeling and RLHF

Abstract (arXiv)

Reward models are central to Large Language Model (LLM) alignment within the framework of RLHF. The standard objective used in reward modeling is the Bradley-Terry (BT) loss, which learns from pairwise data consisting of chosen and rejected responses. In this work, we analyze the per-sample gradient of BT-loss and show spurious learning signals due to representation distance. In particular, BT gradient norm scales with two distinct components: (1) prediction error, reflected by the difference in predicted rewards between chosen and rejected responses, and critically, (2) representation distance between the pair measured in the output space of the final layer. While the first term captures the intended training signal, the second term can significantly impact the update magnitude and misalign learning. Specifically, pairs with small representation distance often receive vanishingly weak updates, even when misranked, while pairs with large distance receive disproportionately strong updates. This leads to gradients from large-distance pairs to overshadow those from small-distance pairs, where fine-grained distinctions are especially important. To overcome this limitation, we propose NormBT, an adaptive pair-wise normalization scheme that rescales updates to balance representation-driven effects and focuses learning signals on prediction error. NormBT is a lightweight, drop-in modification to BT loss with negligible overhead. Across various LLM backbones and datasets, NormBT improves reward model performance consistently, with notable gains of over 5% on the Reasoning category of RewardBench, which contains numerous fine-grained pairs.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reward modeling and RLHF, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 37 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Dec 2025.

Builds on

37 of 48 references.

Closest ancestors · 23

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2025Skywork-Reward-V2: Scaling Preference Data Curation via Human-AI Synergy2 Jul
  2. 2025On the Robustness of Reward Models for Language Model Alignment12 May
  3. 2025A Comprehensive Survey of Reward Models: Taxonomy, Applications, Challenges, and Future12 Apr
  4. 2025What Makes a Reward Model a Good Teacher? An Optimization Perspective19 Mar
  5. 2025PILAF: Optimal Human Preference Sampling for Reward Modeling6 Feb
  6. 2025Reviving The Classics: Active Reward Modeling in Large Language Model Alignment4 Feb
  7. 2024Skywork-Reward: Bag of Tricks for Reward Modeling in LLMs24 Oct
  8. 2024RM-Bench: Benchmarking Reward Models of Language Models with Subtlety and Style21 Oct
  9. 2024How to Evaluate Reward Models for RLHF18 Oct
  10. 2024Taming Overconfidence in LLMs: Reward Calibration in RLHF13 Oct
  11. 2024Reward Learning From Preference With Ties5 Oct
  12. 2024HelpSteer2-Preference: Complementing Ratings with Preferences2 Oct
11 more
  1. 2024Post-hoc Reward Calibration: A Case Study on Length Bias25 Sep
  2. 2024Quantile Regression for Distributional Reward Models in RLHF16 Sep
  3. 2024Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Experts18 Jun
  4. 2024Regularizing Hidden States Enables Learning Generalizable Reward Model for LLMs14 Jun
  5. 2023Reward Model Ensembles Help Mitigate Overoptimization4 Oct
  6. 2023Fine-Grained Human Feedback Gives Better Rewards for Language Model Training2 Jun
  7. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model29 May
  8. 2022Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization19 Oct
  9. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback12 Apr
  10. 2019Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences18 Sep
  11. 2017Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences12 Jun

Other references · 14

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
  3. 2016Layer Normalizationcited by 5,579
  4. 2020Learning to summarize from human feedbackcited by 2,562
  5. 2019HuggingFace's Transformers: State-of-the-art Natural Language Processingcited by 2,201
  6. 2024SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Rewardcited by 951
  7. 2024Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Predictioncited by 465
  8. 2023UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedbackcited by 394
  9. 2025RM-R1: Reward Modeling as Reasoningcited by 149
  10. 2024When to Trust LLMs: Aligning Confidence with Response Qualitycited by 42
  11. 2025Retrieval-Augmented Process Reward Model for Generalizable Mathematical Reasoningcited by 23
  12. 2025AlphaPO: Reward Shape Matters for LLM Alignmentcited by 14
2 more
  1. 2025Pairwise Calibrated Rewards for Pluralistic Alignmentcited by 12
  2. 2025ReasonGRM: Enhancing Generative Reward Models through Large Reasoning Modelscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Rethinking Bradley-Terry Models in Preference-Based Reward Modeling: Foundations, Theory, and Alternatives
  2. 2025Debiasing Reward Models by Representation Learning with Guarantees
  3. 2024Elephant in the Room: Unveiling the Impact of Reward Model Quality in Alignment
  4. 2024Rethinking the Role of Proxy Rewards in Language Model Alignment
  5. 2025Reusing Embeddings: Reproducible Reward Model Research in Large Language Model Alignment without GPUs
  6. 2026Robust Reward Modeling for Large Language Models via Causal Decomposition
  7. 2024Reward-Augmented Data Enhances Direct Preference Alignment of LLMs
  8. 2024RMB: Comprehensively Benchmarking Reward Models in LLM Alignment