# The Flip Side of RLHF: On-Policy Feedback for Reward Model Self-Supervised Improvement

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.30888 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.30888/

## 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 24 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 May 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, 24 of 24)

- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14476/) (2025)
- [High-Dimensional Continuous Control Using Generalized Advantage Estimation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1506.02438/) (2015)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00267/) (2023)
- [From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipeline](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11939/) (2024)
- [UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01377/) (2023)
- [Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12845/) (2024)
- [JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12784/) (2024)
- [Reward Model Ensembles Help Mitigate Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02743/) (2023)
- [Coordinate Descent Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1502.04759/) (2015)
- [Skywork-Reward-V2: Scaling Preference Data Curation via Human-AI Synergy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.01352/) (2025)
- [RM-Bench: Benchmarking Reward Models of Language Models with Subtlety and Style](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.16184/) (2024)
- [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)
- [How to Evaluate Reward Models for RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14872/) (2024)
- [Agentic Reinforcement Learning with Implicit Step Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.19199/) (2025)
- [Real-Time Aligned Reward Model beyond Semantics](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.22664/) (2026)
- [Adaptive Preference Optimization with Uncertainty-aware Utility Anchor](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.10515/) (2025)
- [Reward Models Are Secretly Value Functions: Temporally Coherent Reward Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.22981/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Building strong reward models (RMs) for language model alignment is bottlenecked by the cost and difficulty of acquiring diverse and reliable preference data from human annotation or judge models. It is dramatically worse as the policy evolves beyond the static RM training. Therefore, we propose SAVE (Self-supervised reward model improvement via Value-Anchored On-policy feedback), a framework that grades on-policy responses as feedback by using the value function for on-policy RM training. SAVE naturally converts the reward-graded on-policy responses into supervision with a prompt-specific value head as an adaptive anchor. It computes RM advantages and filters ambiguous samples to update the RM via a contrastive objective. The effectiveness of SAVE for enhancing RM training is strongly validated through rigorous empirical evaluation across six diverse benchmarks. It achieves outperforming results across all datasets while maintaining consistent improvements across three RL algorithms (GRPO, RLOO, GSPO) and different policy backbones.