# Reward Modeling for Scientific Writing Evaluation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11374 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.11374/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 28 of its 43 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 16 Jan 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/knowledge-and-tool-augmented-reasoning/)
- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Human values and AI feedback alignment](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/human-values-and-ai-feedback-alignment/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 28 of 28)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [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)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Implicitly Incentivizes Correct Reasoning in Base LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.14245/) (2025)
- [Step-DPO: Step-wise Preference Optimization for Long-chain Reasoning of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.18629/) (2024)
- [Inference-Time Scaling for Generalist Reward Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.02495/) (2025)
- [Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01783/) (2023)
- [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)
- [Regularizing Hidden States Enables Learning Generalizable Reward Model for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10216/) (2024)
- [OpenRubrics: Towards Scalable Synthetic Rubric Generation for Reward Modeling and LLM Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.07743/) (2025)
- [Limitations of the LLM-as-a-Judge Approach for Evaluating LLM Outputs in Expert Knowledge Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.20266/) (2024)
- [How to Evaluate Reward Models for RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14872/) (2024)
- [JudgeLRM: Large Reasoning Models as a Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.00050/) (2025)
- [Leveraging Large Language Models for NLG Evaluation: Advances and Challenges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.07103/) (2024)
- [AI-Slop to AI-Polish? Aligning Language Models through Edit-Based Writing Rewards and Test-time Computation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.07532/) (2025)
- [Related Work and Citation Text Generation: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.11588/) (2024)
- [The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for Authors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.04484/) (2025)
- [LazyReview A Dataset for Uncovering Lazy Thinking in NLP Peer Reviews](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.11042/) (2025)
- [Beyond "Not Novel Enough": Enriching Scholarly Critique with LLM-Assisted Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10795/) (2025)
- [Identifying Reliable Evaluation Metrics for Scientific Text Revision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.04772/) (2025)
- [Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.07955/) (2025)
- [PaTaRM: Bridging Pairwise and Pointwise Signals via Preference-Aware Task-Adaptive Reward Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.24235/) (2025)
- [LongRM: Revealing and Unlocking the Context Boundary of Reward Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.06915/) (2025)
- [From Faithfulness to Correctness: Generative Reward Models that Think Critically](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25409/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Uncertainty-Aware Generation and Decision-Making Under Ambiguity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.30578/) (2026)
- [The Boundaries of Automation: A Theory of Persistent Human Participation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.21547/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Scientific writing is an expert-domain task that demands deep domain knowledge, task-specific requirements and reasoning capabilities that leverage the domain knowledge to satisfy the task specifications. While scientific text generation has been widely studied, its evaluation remains a challenging and open problem. It is critical to develop models that can be reliably deployed for evaluating diverse open-ended scientific writing tasks while adhering to their distinct requirements. However, existing LLM-based judges and reward models are primarily optimized for general-purpose benchmarks with fixed scoring rubrics and evaluation criteria. Consequently, they often fail to reason over sparse knowledge of scientific domains when interpreting task-dependent and multi-faceted criteria. Moreover, fine-tuning for each individual task is costly and impractical for low-resource settings. To bridge these gaps, we propose cost-efficient, open-source reward models tailored for scientific writing evaluation. We introduce a two-stage training framework that initially optimizes scientific evaluation preferences and then refines reasoning capabilities. Our multi-aspect evaluation design and joint training across diverse tasks enable fine-grained assessment and robustness to dynamic criteria and scoring rubrics. Experimental analysis shows that our training regime strongly improves LLM-based scientific writing evaluation. Our models generalize effectively across tasks and to previously unseen scientific writing evaluation settings, allowing a single trained evaluator to be reused without task-specific retraining.