# EnGRICH: Enhancing Generative Reward Modeling with Critiques from Humans

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.05370 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.05370/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 33 of its 35 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- 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, 30 of 33)

- [LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09685/) (2021)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.01210/) (2023)
- [Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07911/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipeline](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11939/) (2024)
- [RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13787/) (2024)
- [Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15240/) (2024)
- [Skywork-Reward: Bag of Tricks for Reward Modeling in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18451/) (2024)
- [Learning to Reason under Off-Policy Guidance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.14945/) (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)
- [RM-Bench: Benchmarking Reward Models of Language Models with Subtlety and Style](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.16184/) (2024)
- [Training Language Models with Language Feedback at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16755/) (2023)
- [RL4F: Generating Natural Language Feedback with Reinforcement Learning for Repairing Model Outputs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.08844/) (2023)
- [HelpSteer3-Preference: Open Human-Annotated Preference Data across Diverse Tasks and Languages](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11475/) (2025)
- [Self-Generated Critiques Boost Reward Modeling for Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16646/) (2024)
- [Alternating Reinforcement Learning for Rubric-Based Reward Modeling in Non-Verifiable LLM Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.01511/) (2026)
- [LitBench: A Benchmark and Dataset for Reliable Evaluation of Creative Writing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.00769/) (2025)
- [Beyond Scalar Reward Model: Learning Generative Judge from Preference Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03742/) (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)
- [Reward Modeling from Natural Language Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.07349/) (2026)
- [Outcome Accuracy is Not Enough: Aligning the Reasoning Process of Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.04649/) (2026)
- [HREF: Human Response-Guided Evaluation of Instruction Following in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15524/) (2024)
- [ReasonGRM: Enhancing Generative Reward Models through Large Reasoning Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.16712/) (2025)
- [Stabilizing Long-term Multi-turn Reinforcement Learning with Gated Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.10548/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Generative reward models (GRMs) are important for LLM optimization. Unlike scalar reward models, GRMs generate natural-language critiques alongside preference judgments, providing finer-grained evaluation signals. Their effectiveness depends heavily on critique reliability. However, existing GRM training typically uses final preference correctness as outcome supervision. Because the preference outcome space is highly constrained, unreliable critiques can still yield correct outcomes and thus be reinforced. Recent work leverages human critiques for process supervision, but such critiques are scarce and are often reduced to scalar rewards, leaving their fine-grained evaluative information underutilized. We argue that evaluative criteria learned from human critiques can be generalized to broader outcome-only preference data. To this end, we propose EnGRICH, a GRM training framework that pairs the GRM with a training-time MetaCritic learned from a small set of human critiques. MetaCritic constructs response-specific rubrics and uses them to evaluate the evidence coverage and correctness of generated critiques. The resulting signals provide both process rewards for fine-grained credit assignment and structured guidance for exploring better critiques. During GRM training, MetaCritic is further optimized to generalize human-grounded evaluative criteria to outcome-only data. At inference, the trained GRM operates independently. Experiments across seven reward-model benchmarks show that EnGRICH consistently improves over competitive baselines, while further analyses validate the effectiveness of its core mechanisms.