cs.LGApr 28, 2026

When Errors Can Be Beneficial: A Categorization of Imperfect Rewards for Policy Gradient

Authors: Shuning ShangHubert StraussStanley WeiSanjeev AroraNoam Razin

Organizations: Princeton Language and Intelligence, Princeton University

Abstract

Training language models via reinforcement learning often relies on imperfect proxy rewards, since ground truth rewards that precisely define the intended behavior are rarely available. Standard metrics for assessing the quality of proxy rewards, such as ranking accuracy, treat incorrect rewards as strictly harmful. In this work, however, we highlight that not all deviations from the ground truth are equal. By theoretically analyzing which outputs attract probability during policy gradient optimization, we categorize reward errors according to their effect on the increase in ground truth reward. The analysis establishes that reward errors, though conventionally viewed as harmful, can also be benign or even beneficial by preventing the policy from stalling around outputs with mediocre ground truth reward. We then present two practical implications of our theory. First, for reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), we develop reward model evaluation metrics that account for the harmfulness of reward errors. Compared to standard ranking accuracy, these metrics typically correlate better with the performance of a language model after RLHF, yet gaps remain in robustly evaluating reward models. Second, we provide insights for reward design in settings with verifiable rewards. A key theme underlying our results is that the effectiveness of a proxy reward function depends heavily on its interaction with the initial policy and learning algorithm.

Explore similar work

Feb 20, 2026cs.LG

Gradient Regularization Mitigates Reward Hacking in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback and Verifiable 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.
Johannes Ackermann, Michael Noukhovitch, Takashi Ishida +1
May 4, 2026cs.LG

Binary Rewards and Reinforcement Learning: Fundamental Challenges

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a standard approach for improving reasoning in language models, yet models trained with RLVR often suffer from diversity collapse: while single-sample accuracy improves, multi-sample coverage degrades, sometimes falling below the base model. We provide a structural account of this phenomenon grounded in the properties of binary rewards. Binary rewards create a fundamental degeneracy for policy gradient methods: the set of distributions maximizing expected reward is infinite, with no distinguished element. KL-control resolves this degeneracy by selecting, in the limit β0β\to 0, the filtered model p:=a(Y1)p_*:=a(\cdot\mid\mathcal{Y}_1) -- the base model conditioned on validity -- which is the unique fully valid distribution closest to the base model in KL divergence. This selection operates through a nontrivial asymmetry: the tilted distribution p[β]a(y)ev(y)/βp_{[β]}\propto a(y)\,e^{v(y)/β} converges to pp_* in forward KL as β0β\to 0, yet pp_* cannot serve as a direct optimization target because KL(qp)\mathrm{KL}(q\,\|\,p_*) is infinite for any full-support policy qq. We develop explicit formulas relating the hyperparameter ββ to the more interpretable target validity rate μμ. Under model misspecification -- the typical practical regime -- the pressure to decrease ββ drives the optimizer toward highly concentrated distributions over a small number of valid outputs, collapsing toward ever fewer as ββ decreases, rather than toward the filtered model. We illustrate this mechanism on a toy autoregressive experiment and discuss how alternative divergences that target pp_* directly -- as pursued empirically by \citet{kruszewski_whatever_2026} -- avoid this failure mode by rewarding coverage of pp_*'s support rather than concentration on high-validity outputs.
Marc Dymetman
May 19, 2025cs.CL

R3: Robust Rubric-Agnostic Reward Models

Reward models are essential for aligning language model outputs with human preferences, yet existing approaches often lack both controllability and interpretability. These models are typically optimized for narrow objectives, limiting their generalizability to broader downstream tasks. Moreover, their scalar outputs are difficult to interpret without contextual reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce R3, a novel reward modeling framework that is rubric-agnostic, generalizable across evaluation dimensions, and provides interpretable, reasoned score assignments. R3 enables more transparent and flexible evaluation of language models, supporting robust alignment with diverse human values and use cases. Our models, data, and code are available as open source at https://github.com/rubricreward/r3.
David Anugraha, Zilu Tang, Lester James V. Miranda +5