Organizations: Faculty of Computing, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, China · School of Intelligence Science and Technology, Nanjing University, Suzhou, China · School of Computer Science and Technology, Harbin Institute of Technolgy, Shenzhen, China
The widespread adoption of reinforcement learning-based alignment highlights the growing importance of reward models. Various benchmarks have been built to evaluate reward models in various domains and scenarios. However, a significant gap remains in assessing reward models for long-form generation, despite its critical role in real-world applications. To bridge this, we introduce Long-form RewardBench, the first reward modeling testbed specifically designed for long-form generation. Our benchmark encompasses five key subtasks: QA, RAG, Chat, Writing, and Reasoning. We collected instruction and preference data through a meticulously designed multi-stage data collection process, and conducted extensive experiments on 20+ mainstream reward models, including both classifiers and generative models. Our findings reveal that current models still lack long-form reward modeling capabilities. Furthermore, we designed a novel Long-form Needle-in-a-Haystack Test, which revealed a correlation between reward modeling performance and the error's position within a response, as well as the overall response length, with distinct characteristics observed between classification and generative models. Finally, we demonstrate that classifiers exhibit better generalizability compared to generative models trained on the same data. As the first benchmark for long-form reward modeling, this work aims to offer a robust platform for visualizing progress in this crucial area.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The data construction process of Long-form RewardBench and Long-form Needle-in-a-Haystack Test.
Subset
Num
Response
Avg.Len
Min.Len
Max. Len
QA
227
Chosen
1463
327
4129
Rejected
1013
258
3075
RAG
239
Chosen
995
200
3332
Rejected
640
200
6053
Chat
332
Chosen
2286
569
8387
Rejected
1719
200
32723
Table 1: Statistics of responses in different subsets.
Figure 2: Response length distribution of chosen and rejected responses on Long-form RewardBench.
Figure 3: Model distribution for chosen and rejected responses on Long-form RewardBench.
Long-form-RM
RB2
RB1
Model
Type
Score
QA
RAG
Chat
Writing
Reasoning
Score
Score
Skywork/Skywork-Reward-V2-Llama-3.2-3B
Classifier
74.9
87.5
57.3
72.8
78.6
78.7
74.9
-
openai/gpt-4.1-2025-04-14
Generative
74.6
58.0
70.6
80.5
78.1
78.4
72.3
-
anthropic/claude-opus-4-20250514
Generative
74.4
57.1
71.9
75.4
79.4
80.1
76.5
-
allenai/Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct-RM-RB2
Classifier
74.4
59.7
77.5
78.3
81.6
72.3
76.1
90.2
allenai/Llama-3.1-Tulu-3-70B-SFT-RM-RB2
Classifier
73.9
59.7
74.0
81.2
83.1
69.2
72.2
88.9
Table 2: Top performing models on Long-form RewardBench, categorized into two types: classifier ( ) and generative ( ). We also present their performance on RewardBench2 (RB2) and RewardBench1 (RB1) as extra reference.
Model
Type
Score
Invalid
RISE-Judge-Qwen2.5-32B
Scoring
37.1
46.7%
Selection
51.6
23.3%
Selene-1-Mini-Llama-3.1-8B
Scoring
25.6
71.2%
Selection
57.3
7.9%
Skywork-Critic-Llama-3.1-8B
Scoring
24.3
73.9%
Selection
25.1
68.8%
Table 3: Fine-tuned generative models used for BoN sampling. We report both the overall score and the percentage of invalid responses on the four BoN sampling subsets.
Model
Type
Long-form RewardBench
Score
QA
RAG
Chat
Writing
Reasoning
google/gemini-2.5-flash-preview-04-17
Scoring
40.8
20.3
19.3
41.3
36.9
64.9
Selection
73.6
58.0
60.4
72.5
72.2
90.2
anthropic/claude-opus-4-20250514
Scoring
58.9
66.4
71.8
82.5
80.0
66.4
Selection
74.4
57.1
71.9
75.4
79.4
80.1
openai/gpt-4o-2024-08-06
Scoring
41.1
14.2
25.1
40.6
40.3
64.0
Table 4: Comparison of generative models in Selection or Scoring modes.
Figure 4: Needle-in-a-haystack test of two representative reward models on Factuality and Safety.
Figure 5: RM accuracy with different training data lengths.
Reward models (RMs) have become essential for aligning large language models (LLMs), serving as scalable proxies for human evaluation in both training and inference. However, existing RMs struggle on knowledge-intensive and long-form tasks, where evaluating correctness requires grounding beyond the model's internal knowledge. This limitation hinders them from reliably discriminating subtle quality differences, especially when external evidence is necessary. To address this, we introduce OpenRM, a tool-augmented long-form reward model that systematically judges open-ended responses by invoking external tools to gather relevant evidence. We train OpenRM with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) on over 27K synthesized pairwise examples generated through a controllable data synthesis framework. The training objective jointly supervises intermediate tool usage and final outcome accuracy, incentivizing our reward model to learn effective evidence-based judgment strategies. Extensive experiments on three newly-collected datasets and two widely-used benchmarks demonstrate that OpenRM substantially outperforms existing reward modeling approaches. As a further step, we integrate OpenRM into both inference-time response selection and training-time data selection. This yields consistent gains in downstream LLM alignment tasks, highlighting the potential of tool-augmented reward models for scaling reliable long-form evaluation.
Ziyou Hu, Zhengliang Shi, Minghang Zhu +5
Leiden University, Leiden, Netherland · Shandong University, Qingdao, China · Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback has become the standard paradigm for language model alignment, where reward models directly determine alignment effectiveness. In this work, we focus on how to evaluate the generalizability of reward models. By "generalizability", we mean the ability of RMs to correctly rank responses to align with diverse user preferences. However, existing reward model benchmarks are typically designed around a universal preference, failing to assess this generalization. To address this critical gap, we introduce RMGAP, a benchmark comprising 1,097 instances across Chat, Writing, Reasoning, and Safety domains. Since different users exhibit diverse preferences for the same task, we first generate four distinct responses with different linguistic profiles for each collected prompt. However, the original prompt set lacks the specificity to convey different preferences. We therefore construct tailored prompts by contrasting these candidates and designing scenarios in which one response becomes the uniquely appropriate choice. Moreover, we observe that users often express the same preference using different phrasings, and thus extend each prompt with two paraphrased variants. Our evaluation of 24 state-of-the-art RMs reveals their substantial limitations: even the best RM achieves only 49.27% Best-of-N accuracy, highlighting considerable room for improvement in reward model generalization. Related data and code are available at https://github.com/nanzhi84/RMGAP.
Yangyang Zhou, Yi-Chen Li
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University, China
Large language models have achieved remarkable progress in text generation but still struggle with generative writing tasks. In terms of evaluation, existing benchmarks evaluate writing reward models coarsely and fail to measure performance from the perspective of specific requirements. In terms of training, existing training methods either use LLM-as-a-judge approaches or train coarse-grained reward models, lacking fine-grained requirement-adherence reward modeling. To address these issues, we propose a fine-grained evaluation pipeline WEval for writing reward models and a fine-grained reinforcement learning training framework WRL. The evaluation data of WEval covers multiple task categories and requirement types, enabling systematic evaluation of writing reward models by measuring the correlation between the rankings of the reward model and gold rankings. WRL constructs positive and negative samples by selectively dropping instruction requirements, allowing for more precise reward model training. Experiments show that our models achieve substantial improvements across various writing benchmarks and exhibit strong generalization. The code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Rainier-rq1/From_Coarse_to_Fine.
Qingyu Ren, Tianjun Pan, Xingzhou Chen +1
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Data Science, College of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Fudan University · 2Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory