Recent advancements in Generative Reward Models (GRMs) have demonstrated that scaling the length of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning considerably enhances the reliability of evaluation. However, current works predominantly rely on unstructured length scaling, ignoring the divergent efficacy of different reasoning mechanisms: Breadth-CoT (B-CoT, i.e., multi-dimensional principle coverage) and Depth-CoT (D-CoT, i.e., substantive judgment soundness). To address this, we introduce Mix-GRM, a framework that reconfigures raw rationales into structured B-CoT and D-CoT through a modular synthesis pipeline, subsequently employing Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) to internalize and optimize these mechanisms. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that Mix-GRM establishes a new state-of-the-art across five benchmarks, surpassing leading open-source RMs by an average of 8.2%. Our results reveal a clear divergence in reasoning: B-CoT benefits subjective preference tasks, whereas D-CoT excels in objective correctness tasks. Consequently, misaligning the reasoning mechanism with the task directly degrades performance. Furthermore, we demonstrate that RLVR acts as a switching amplifier, inducing an emergent polarization where the model spontaneously allocates its reasoning style to match task demands. The synthesized data and models are released at Hugging Face, and the code is released at Github.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The pipeline of the Mix-GRM. (i) Standardization : We extract raw rationales into modular Principle–Judgment–Verdict units. (II) Mechanism Synthesis : We reconstruct modules into B-CoT for preference or D-CoT for correctness. (III) Training & Inference : Following SFT and RLVR training, the model achieves mechanism-adaptive alignment, automatically deploying the optimal mechanism for inference and providing reliable signals for downstream tasks like Offline RL and test-time scaling.
Models
Stage
Data
Benchmarks
RB-v1 †
RB-v2 †
RM-Bench
RMB
PPE
Avg.
Reference: Proprietary Models
DeepSeek-V3.2
–
–
95.5
92.1
91.4
83.9
69.0
86.4
Gemini-3-Flash
–
–
95.3
91.1
93.8
79.2
76.4
87.2
Open-Source Baselines
Skywork-Reward-8B
BT
44K
93.9
79.7
72.4
74.4
61.7
76.5
Table 1: Performance of RMs on reward benchmarks. Among open-source models, the highest score per column is bolded , and the second-highest is underlined . “Overall” denotes the average score within each benchmark. Proprietary LLMs (gray rows) are included for reference. † RB-v1 / v2 refers to RewardBench v1 and v2.
Models
Preference Domain
Correctness Domain
Overall
RB-v1
RB-v2
RM-B †
RMB
PPE
Avg.
RB-v1
RB-v2
RM-B †
RMB
PPE
Avg.
Baselines
FARE-8B
85.0
57.3
66.9
82.9
59.6
70.4↑0.0
85.2
67.3
63.0
88.1
63.3
73.3↑0.0
71.9
RubricRM-8B
82.4
56.0
62.2
77.5
64.9
68.6↑0.0
87.6
64.2
57.6
86.5
60.4
71.3↑0.0
70.0
DeepSeek-GRM
80.6
59.6
64.0
76.8
59.8
68.2↑0.0
76.6
55.8
56.6
86.8
56.8
66.5↑0.0
67.4
Ours: Mix-GRMs
Table 2: Performance of RMs grouped by domain. “Avg.” denotes the domain average. We annotate the performance gap relative to the Base-GRM in SFT baseline within the same stage using colored subscripts ( ↑ for gain, ↓ for drop). Highest score per column is bolded , second-highest is underlined . † RM-B refers to RM-Bench.
Models
Instruction-Following
Mathematical Reasoning
Alpaca-v2
Arena-Hard
Avg.
GSM8k
MATH
STEM
TabMWP
Avg.
SFT
6.4
4.2
5.3
75.1
25.2
38.6
40.9
45.0
DPO Training (Different RMs)
↪ RubricRM-8B
8.5
12.5
10.5
76.0
26.9
41.4
38.8
45.9
↪ FARE-8B
8.9
15.1
12.0
75.7
26.9
39.0
41.4
45.8
↪ RM-R1-Instruct
7.9
14.3
11.1
76.3
26.5
38.5
41.7
45.8
Table 3: Performance of DPO-trained policy models using different reward models on instruction-following and math-reasoning benchmarks. “Avg.” is the average score of all benchmarks in each domain. In each column, the highest score is bolded and the second-highest is underlined .
Figure 2: Best-of- 10 performance across four challenging reasoning and coding benchmarks. Mix-GRM (ours) consistently achieves the highest accuracy across all tasks, effectively identifying solutions in both mathematical and code generation scenarios. Red and green lines denote random and oracle selection baselines.
Figure 3: Structural evolution of CoT mechanisms. The chart tracks 4 indicators: the average token length per judgment, average principle count, and the percentage of CoT classified as having Breadth or Depth characteristics.
Figure 4: Ablation of B-CoT synthesis. (a) Aggregation Scale: Performance as aggregated rationales ( N ) increases from 1 (Vanilla) to 4. (b) Principle Selection: Comparison of Random, Full, and Consistency (Top-10) selection from the N=4 pool. Orange / blue lines denote Preference/Correctness; dashed lines indicate the Vanilla baseline.
CoT Style
Reasoning Passes
Avg. SFT Tokens
Avg. RLVR Rollouts
Avg. Inference Tokens
D-CoT
2 (Trace + Gen)
624
682
702
B-CoT
2 ( N=2 Sample)
711
830
824
Mix-CoT (Ours)
Adaptive
648
725
731
Table 4: Accounting table reporting the compute and token costs. Token consumption across our proposed methods remains within the same order of magnitude.
Case 1: Preference Domain (B-CoT Wins)
Instruction: アフガニスタンがパキスタンの傀儡というのは本当ですか? (Is it true that Afghanistan is a puppet of Pakistan?)
Response A (Rejected): Response B (Chosen): [Language: English] "A sensitive topic! …While Pakistan has historically exerted significant influence…" [Language: Japanese] 「アフガニスタンとパキスタンの関係については… 簡単に『傀儡』と断言するのは適切ではなく…」
Reasoning Comparison
✗ Vanilla-CoT
Assistant A offers a comprehensive breakdown of historical context… Verdict: [[A]] (Fail: Ignored language mismatch)
✓ B-CoT
1. Principle of Linguistic Alignment: "Assistant B’s response is in Japanese… Sub-Verdict: <<B>>" 2. Principle of Contextual Nuance: "Assistant A provides a detailed explanation… Sub-Verdict: <<A>>" 3. Principle of Cultural Sensitivity: "…" Final Verdict: [[B]] (Success)
✗ D-CoT
1. Principle of Comprehensive Contextualization: The evaluation needs deep reasoning, and let’s solve the instruction: アフガニスタンが…. Based on this, Assistant A excels… Sub-Verdict: <<A>> 2. Principle of Balanced Presentation: … Final Verdict: [[A]] (Fail: Tunnel vision on content depth)
Table 5: Case Study. Case 1 shows how B-CoT aggregates diverse principles to identify subtle preference nuances. Case 2 shows how D-CoT performs step-by-step verification to catch logical errors.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Table 10
Source Dataset
Domain
Samples
HelpSteer-3 (Single-Turn)
General Chat
4,973
STEM
2,321
Code
4,322
Multilingual
3,260
Code-Preference
Code
4,000
Math-DPO
Math
4,000
Appendix
Table 8: Composition and statistics of the training data sampled from domain-specific sources.
Benchmark
Tasks
Samples
RewardBench
Chat, Math, Code, Safety
2,985
RewardBench-v2
Focus, IF, Factuality, Math, Safety, Ties
1,865
RM-Bench
Chat, Math, Code, Safety
11,943
RMB
Harmfulness, Helpfulness (General, Code)
14,725
PPE (Exclude Tie)
Chat, MMLU-Pro, GPQA, IFEval, MBPP
22,991
Appendix
Table 9: Task coverage of the evaluated general reward benchmarks.
Figure 13Figure 14Figure 15Figure 16
Models
Reward Bench
Reward Bench-v2
RM Bench
RMB
PPE
Avg.
Chat
Focus
IF
Chat
Helpfulness
Human
IF
Open-sourced Reward Models
JudgeLRM-7B
75.8
46.8
31.3
68.4
79.3
60.2
54.3
59.4
RM-R1-7B (Distill)
75.3
58.7
24.4
58.7
63.2
57.1
53.0
55.8
RM-R1-7B (Instruct)
80.5
85.3
28.8
64.7
65.1
57.1
53.0
62.1
FARE-8B
85.0
78.4
36.3
66.9
82.9
63.4
55.7
67.0
Appendix
Table 10: Performance of RMs on preference-related sub-tasks. “Avg.” is the average score among sub-tasks. Best per column is bolded ; second-best is underlined .
Models
RewardBench
RewardBench-v2
RM-Bench
RMB
PPE
Avg.
Code
Math
Factuality
MATH
CODE
MATH
CODE
MMLU-Pro
MATH
GPQA
MBPP
Open-sourced Reward Models
JudgeLRM-7B
81.6
77.2
53.8
76.5
51.0
86.7
82.1
57.2
65.5
51.3
52.3
66.8
RM-R1-7B (Distill)
91.9
93.7
28.3
73.2
53.3
85.8
74.8
66.7
89.4
56.3
64.4
70.7
RM-R1-7B (Instruct)
81.7
84.1
42.6
67.8
56.7
72.7
74.7
67.0
89.1
55.9
64.8
68.8
FARE-8B
88.1
82.3
65.8
68.9
57.0
69.1
88.1
63.2
79.3
55.2
55.4
70.2
Appendix
Table 11: Performance of RMs on correctness-related sub-tasks. “Avg.” is the average within this block. Best per column is bolded ; second-best is underlined .
Synthesis Stage
Raw Rationale
Merge B-CoT
Generate D-CoT
Accuracy (%)
87.1
90.2
88.5
Appendix
Table 12: Solution accuracy tracked across different stages of the synthesis pipeline, demonstrating the stability of the intermediate transformations.
Training Data (9K)
w/o Filtering (Noisy)
w/ Filtering (Verified)
SFT Performance (%)
69.8
70.1
Appendix
Table 13: SFT performance comparison between noisy and strictly filtered synthesized data.
Recent advancements in the Generative Reward Model (GRM) have demonstrated its potential to enhance the reasoning abilities of LLMs through Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting. Despite these gains, existing implementations of GRM suffer from two critical limitations. First, CoT prompting is applied indiscriminately to all inputs regardless of their inherent complexity. This introduces unnecessary computational costs for tasks amenable to fast, direct inference. Second, existing approaches primarily rely on voting-based mechanisms to evaluate CoT outputs, which often lack granularity and precision in assessing reasoning quality. In this paper, we propose E-GRM, an efficient generative reward modeling framework grounded in model-internal uncertainty. E-GRM leverages the convergence behavior of parallel model generations to estimate uncertainty and selectively trigger CoT reasoning only when needed, without relying on handcrafted features or task-dependent signals. To improve reward fidelity, we introduce a lightweight discriminative scorer trained with a hybrid regression--ranking objective to provide fine-grained evaluation of reasoning paths. Experiments on multiple reasoning benchmarks show that E-GRM substantially reduces inference cost while consistently improving answer accuracy, demonstrating that model-internal uncertainty is an effective and general signal for efficient reasoning-aware reward modeling.
Chao Xue, Yao Wang, Mengqiao Liu +11
University of New South Wales, Australia · Tencent Hunyuan, China · Tencent Yuanbao, China +2
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.
Xuancheng Li, Beining Wang, Haitao Li +7
Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Tencent, Beijing, China
Generative reward models (GRMs) have emerged as a promising approach for aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) with human preferences by offering greater representational capacity and flexibility than traditional scalar reward models. However, GRMs face two major challenges: reliance on costly human-annotated data restricts scalability, and self-training approaches often suffer from instability and vulnerability to reward hacking. To address these issues, we propose ConsistRM, a self-training framework that enables effective and stable GRM training without human annotations. ConsistRM incorporates the Consistency-Aware Answer Reward, which produces reliable pseudo-labels with temporal consistency, thereby providing more stable model optimization. Moreover, the Consistency-Aware Critique Reward is introduced to assess semantic consistency across multiple critiques and allocates fine-grained and differentiated rewards. Experiments on five benchmark datasets across four base models demonstrate that ConsistRM outperforms vanilla Reinforcement Fine-Tuning (RFT) by an average of 1.5%. Further analysis shows that ConsistRM enhances output consistency and mitigates position bias caused by input order, highlighting the effectiveness of consistency-aware rewards in improving GRMs. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/yuliangCarmelo/ConsistRM.