K-Score: Kalman Filter as a Principled Alternative to Reward Normalization in Reinforcement Learning

Despite their widespread use, the role of reward models in shaping reinforcement learning is poorly understood. Reward models offer a tempting promise: they automatically estimate response quality in the absence of verifiers or human judges. Unlike "verifiable rewards" which typically produce binary scores, reward models typically produce continuous scores, allowing them to be sensitive to fine-grained differences in responses. However, we show this apparent strength is a serious weakness: many popular reward models are oversensitive, assigning different scores to equally good responses. Theoretically, we show that seemingly perfect reward models can be highly oversensitive; empirically, this oversensitivity can lead to bad policies. In place of existing notions of "reward model accuracy," we propose evaluating reward models using distinct measures of "discriminative ability" and "specificity" (the complement of oversensitivity). As a solution, we describe a training-free algorithm that uses Monte Carlo dropout on any neural reward model to produce discrete reward clusters. Theoretically, we prove there exist discretizations that reduce oversensitivity at minimal expense of discriminative ability; empirically we show, in both controlled and natural RL settings, that discretizing rewards leads to less reward hacking and better policies than training on the original rewards.

Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) or Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) are two key steps in the post-training of modern Language Models (LMs). A common problem is reward hacking, where the policy may exploit inaccuracies of the reward and learn an unintended behavior. Most previous works address this by limiting the policy update with a Kullback-Leibler (KL) penalty towards a reference model. We propose a different framing: Train the LM in a way that biases policy updates towards regions in which the reward is more accurate. First, we derive a theoretical connection between the accuracy of a reward model and the flatness of an optimum at convergence. Gradient regularization (GR) can then be used to bias training to flatter regions and thereby maintain reward model accuracy. We confirm these results by showing that the gradient norm and reward accuracy are empirically correlated in RLHF. We then empirically show that Reference Resets of the KL penalty find flatter regions with a higher reward accuracy. We further improve on this by proposing to use explicit GR with an efficient finite-difference estimate. Empirically, GR performs better than a KL penalty across a diverse set of RL experiments with LMs. GR achieves a higher GPT-judged win-rate in RLHF, avoids overly focusing on the format in rule-based math rewards, and prevents hacking the judge in LLM-as-a-Judge math tasks.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards is widely used for post-training reasoning models, but sparse outcome rewards make exploration difficult. A complementary approach is to optimize inference-time objectives such as pass@K and max@K directly, yet existing policy-gradient estimators for these objectives use different signals, baselines, and normalizations, making their relationships unclear. We study this issue through baseline design and advantage centering. Starting from the advantage estimator of a leading method in the field, we show that it is policy-gradient unbiased but yields a non-centered advantage. We then introduce a Leave-Two-Out baseline that preserves policy-gradient unbiasedness while making realized batch advantages exactly centered. The resulting method, MaxPO, has an efficient quadratic-time implementation and integrates naturally into group-based RL for LLM post-training. We further derive the canonical finite-batch advantage for max@K, providing a unified view of existing advantage estimators. Empirically, we verify that the L2O baseline reduces gradient variance and outperforms non-centered alternatives.