# VRM: Teaching Reward Models to Understand Authentic Human Preferences

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.04974 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.04974/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reward modeling and RLHF, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 35 of its 50 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Mar 2026.

## 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 35)

- [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)
- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14476/) (2025)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [Trust Region Policy Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1502.05477/) (2015)
- [Understanding R1-Zero-Like Training: A Critical Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.20783/) (2025)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Reward](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.14734/) (2024)
- [A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12036/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [Group Sequence Policy Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18071/) (2025)
- [RAFT: Reward rAnked FineTuning for Generative Foundation Model Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.06767/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.00515/) (2024)
- [ORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07691/) (2024)
- [From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipeline](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11939/) (2024)
- [Group-in-Group Policy Optimization for LLM Agent Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.10978/) (2025)
- [RRHF: Rank Responses to Align Language Models with Human Feedback without tears](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05302/) (2023)
- [Reasoning Models Don't Always Say What They Think](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.05410/) (2025)
- [MiniMax-M1: Scaling Test-Time Compute Efficiently with Lightning Attention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.13585/) (2025)
- [PKU-SafeRLHF: Towards Multi-Level Safety Alignment for LLMs with Human Preference](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15513/) (2024)
- [MT-Bench-101: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Multi-Turn Dialogues](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14762/) (2024)
- [β-DPO: Direct Preference Optimization with Dynamic β](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.08639/) (2024)
- [Enabling Conversational Interaction with Mobile UI using Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.08655/) (2022)
- [Controllable Text Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.12599/) (2024)
- [WPO: Enhancing RLHF with Weighted Preference Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11827/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse natural language tasks, yet the reward models employed for aligning LLMs often encounter challenges of reward hacking, where the approaches predominantly rely on directly mapping prompt-response pairs to scalar scores, which may inadvertently capture spurious correlations rather than authentic human preferences. In contrast, human evaluation employs a sophisticated process that initially weighs the relative importance of multiple high-dimensional objectives according to the prompt context, subsequently evaluating response quality through low-dimensional semantic features such as logical coherence and contextual appropriateness. Motivated by this consideration, we propose VRM, i.e., Variational Reward Modeling, a novel framework that explicitly models the evaluation process of human preference judgments by incorporating both high-dimensional objective weights and low-dimensional semantic features as latent variables, which are inferred through variational inference techniques. Additionally, we provide a theoretical analysis showing that VRM can achieve a tighter generalization error bound compared to the traditional reward model. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that VRM significantly outperforms existing methods in capturing authentic human preferences.