Reward modeling is not only a prediction problem: in KL-regularized policy optimization, the learned reward is exponentiated to define the deployed policy, so downstream value depends on errors in reward-tilted regions. We study this feedback in a Gaussian single-index model with r∗(x)=σ∗(⟨θ∗,x⟩) and x∼N(0,Id). We analyze a two-stage neural reward model that first learns the hidden direction θ∗ from reward-weighted samples and then fits the readout layer by weighted ridge regression. Exponential reward weighting changes the Hermite signal available to the first layer; for any feature-learning temperature β1 above a dimension-free O(1) threshold, a constant fraction of neurons recover the hidden direction, with weak-recovery complexity governed by the generative exponent. After feature recovery, we derive tilted-policy value-gap bounds for an idealized label-weighted fit with weights ey/β2 and a more practical surrogate-weighted fit with weights era0(x)/β2. Keeping the β2-dependence explicit yields an admissible set of deployment temperatures, balancing the gain from lowering β2 against the learning cost amplified by exponential weighting; in the surrogate-weighted case, proxy-dependent factors shrink this admissible set.
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.
State-of-the-art model-based reinforcement learning methods train policies on imagined rollouts. These rollouts are trajectories generated by a learned dynamics model and are scored by a learned reward model, but without querying the true environment during policy updates. We study this training paradigm by quantifying how errors in learned dynamics and reward models affect returns and policy optimization. First, we extend the analysis of Asadi et al. (2018) to MDPs with learned reward models, and derive the optimal sample allocation--the ratio of dynamics samples to reward samples that minimizes a bound on return error under power-law scaling assumptions. We identify lower Lipschitz constants of the learned dynamics, reward, and policy as a representation desideratum that tightens this bound, and we connect this perspective to the temporal-straightening objective of Wang et al. (2026). Second, we examine how policy optimization with REINFORCE tolerates noisy rewards, which are often cheaper to obtain. We show that zero-mean reward noise leaves the gradient estimator unbiased and adds at most a variance term that decreases with the number of rollouts. This introduces a practical tradeoff: given a fixed budget, should one buy more rollouts with cheaper but noisier rewards, or fewer rollouts with more expensive but less noisy rewards? We reduce this choice to a one-dimensional optimization problem and characterize the optimum.
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.