Judging in Latent Space: Efficient Generative Reward Modeling via Semantics-Preserving Compression

Open-ended reward modeling requires judges that can follow subtle, domain-specific preferences when verifiable answers are unavailable. Existing rubric-based methods often address this by generating criteria online for each query, but the extra generation step can add inference overhead and produce rigid or misaligned guidance. We introduce Eval-Skill, an exploration-guided method that synthesizes reusable evaluation skills for reward modeling and reframes reward guidance as context evolution rather than parameter training or per-query rubric generation. Using only 100 cases per domain for skill evolution, Eval-Skill synthesizes reusable domain-level evaluation skills through two progressive stages, workflow generation followed by principle generation, with exploration and selection interleaved across both stages. Once generated, a skill is directly injected into the judge context. Across multiple RM benchmarks, Eval-Skill consistently improves diverse judge backbones; on RewardBench 2, it yields significant gains over vanilla judging for each main backbone (+13.44% for Qwen3-8B, and 18.51% for DeepSeek-V4-Flash). Further analyses of evolution-time scaling, generalizability, and transferability show that compact evaluation skills offer an efficient new paradigm for LLM-based evaluation. Code is available at https://github.com/xing-stellus-yue/Eval-Skill.

Generative reward models (GRMs) are important for LLM optimization. Unlike scalar reward models, GRMs generate natural-language critiques alongside preference judgments, providing finer-grained evaluation signals. Their effectiveness depends heavily on critique reliability. However, existing GRM training typically uses final preference correctness as outcome supervision. Because the preference outcome space is highly constrained, unreliable critiques can still yield correct outcomes and thus be reinforced. Recent work leverages human critiques for process supervision, but such critiques are scarce and are often reduced to scalar rewards, leaving their fine-grained evaluative information underutilized. We argue that evaluative criteria learned from human critiques can be generalized to broader outcome-only preference data. To this end, we propose \textbf{EnGRICH}, a GRM training framework that pairs the GRM with a training-time MetaCritic learned from a small set of human critiques. MetaCritic constructs response-specific rubrics and uses them to evaluate the evidence coverage and correctness of generated critiques. The resulting signals provide both process rewards for fine-grained credit assignment and structured guidance for exploring better critiques. During GRM training, MetaCritic is further optimized to generalize human-grounded evaluative criteria to outcome-only data. At inference, the trained GRM operates independently. Experiments across seven reward-model benchmarks show that EnGRICH consistently improves over competitive baselines, while further analyses validate the effectiveness of its core mechanisms.

Latent reasoning allows language models to carry out intermediate reasoning in continuous latent representations rather than fully externalizing it as discrete chains of thought. However, assigning credit to such latent thoughts from answer-only rewards is difficult: a single final answer mixes thought quality with answer-sampling noise. We propose \textbf{Latent Thought Credit (LTC)}, a hierarchical credit-assignment framework for latent reasoning. For each prompt, LTC samples multiple latent thoughts, fixes the context after each thought, and estimates thought-level expected reward by averaging rewards over multiple answers generated from that fixed context. LTC uses thought-level advantages to optimize the latent-thought phase, answer-level advantages to optimize the answer phase, and an advantage-weighted thought-matching objective that helps the policy reproduce high-credit latent thoughts. We instantiate LTC in a GRPO-style on-policy training framework and evaluate it across mathematical reasoning and STEM multiple-choice tasks. LTC achieves the best average accuracy among the compared methods, while ablations and fixed-context diagnostics show that multi-answer estimation reduces reward-estimation error and mitigates ambiguous or incorrect thought-level credit.