RewardExplainer: Learning Reward Model Explanations from Counterfactual Preference Feedback

Every RLHF-trained language model is shaped by a reward model, yet the mechanistic interpretability toolkit -- logit lens, direct logit attribution, activation patching, sparse autoencoders -- was built for generative LLMs whose primitives all project onto a vocabulary unembedding. Reward models replace that with a scalar regression head, breaking each tool. We present reward-lens, an open-source library that ports this toolkit to reward models, organised around one observation: the reward head's weight vector $w_r$ is the natural axis for every interpretability question. The library provides a Reward Lens, component attribution, three-mode activation patching, a reward-hacking probe suite, TopK SAE feature attribution, cross-model comparison, and five theory-grounded extensions (distortion index, divergence-aware patching, misalignment cascade detection, reward-term conflict analysis, concept-vector analysis). A ten-method adapter protocol covers Llama, Mistral, Gemma-2, and ArmoRM multi-objective heads, with a generic adapter for any HuggingFace sequence classification model. We validate on two production reward models across ~695 RewardBench pairs. The central empirical finding is negative: linear attribution does not predict causal patching effects (mean Spearman $ρ= -0.256$ on Skywork, $-0.027$ on ArmoRM). The framework treats this disagreement as a property to expose, not a bug -- motivating a design that keeps observational and causal views first-class and directly comparable.

Chain-of-thought explanations are widely used to inspect the decision process of large language models (LLMs) and to evaluate the trustworthiness of model outputs, making them important for effective collaboration between LLMs and humans. We demonstrate that preference optimization - a key step in the alignment phase - can inadvertently reduce the faithfulness of these explanations. This occurs because the reward model (RM), which guides alignment, is tasked with optimizing both the expected quality of the response and the appropriateness of the explanations (e.g., minimizing bias or adhering to safety standards), creating potential conflicts. The RM lacks a mechanism to assess the consistency between the model's internal decision process and the generated explanation. Consequently, the LLM may engage in "reward hacking" by producing a final response that scores highly while giving an explanation tailored to maximize reward rather than accurately reflecting its reasoning. To address this issue, we propose enriching the RM's input with a causal attribution of the prediction, allowing the RM to detect discrepancies between the generated self-explanation and the model's decision process. In controlled settings, we show that this approach reduces the tendency of the LLM to generate misleading explanations.

Reward models (RMs) play a central role in aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, RMs are often sensitive to spurious features such as response length. Existing inference-time approaches for mitigating these biases typically focus exclusively on response length, resulting in performance trade-offs. In this paper, we propose causally motivated intervention for mitigating multiple types of biases in RMs at inference time. Our method first identifies neurons whose activations are strongly correlated with predefined bias attributes, and applies neuron-level intervention that suppresses these signals. We evaluate our method on RM benchmarks and observe reductions in sensitivity to spurious features across diverse bias types, without inducing performance trade-offs. Moreover, when used for preference annotation, small RMs (2B and 7B) with our method, which edits less than 2% of all the neurons in RMs, enable LLMs to improve alignment, achieving performance comparable to that of a state-of-the-art 70B RM on AlpacaEval and MT-Bench. Further analysis reveals that bias signals are primarily encoded by neurons in early layers, shedding light on the internal mechanisms of bias exploitation in RMs.