Unsupervised Multimodal Reward Modeling
Organizations: Massachusetts Institute of Technology · Cornell University · Scale AI · Harvard University
Abstract
Vision-language reward models are trained on annotated preference pairs, which are expensive to collect, can disagree, and are ranked by benchmark accuracy. We build one with no human preference label: a linear head on an intermediate layer of a frozen Qwen3-VL backbone, trained to score a web caption above a perturbed version of the same caption; labeled data enters only to select the layer. The layer is the decisive choice, worth 5.8 points over the last layer, and one recipe transferred without re-tuning beats or at least matches GPT-4o on three benchmarks at 32B, 6.6 points ahead on VL-RewardBench, from a few thousand parameters at about a thousandth of fine-tuning compute. At an equal pair budget, perturbations teach a frozen head 3 to 5 points more than curated RLAIF-V pairs. Because the backbone is frozen, the objective is convex, and the perturbation sampler specifies the reward, which the benchmark does not identify: two heads trained on disjoint halves of the same perturbations tie on the benchmark and differ by 6.4 points in hallucination judging. Retraining the head on the policy's own verifier-labeled candidates cuts caption hallucination by 5.1 CHAIR points and lifts image-generation pass rate by 5.4, while scoring lower on every reward benchmark. Together, an intermediate-layer probe, free same-image perturbations, and a verifier-driven bootstrap turn give a recipe for multimodal reward modeling that needs no annotator, costs a fraction of fine-tuning, and is specified by the comparisons it is trained on rather than by a benchmark rank.
Figures & tables
| Model | Overall | General | Knowl. | Reasoning | Safety | VQA | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corr. | Pref. | Math | Coding | Bias | ||||
| Claude 3.5 Sonnet | .720 | .626 | .678 | .739 | .686 | .651 | .768 | .856 |
| Gemini 1.5 Pro | .720 | .635 | .677 | .663 | .689 | .555 | .945 | .872 |
| GPT-4o | .715 | .626 | .690 | .720 | .676 | .621 | .748 | .872 |
| Ours: 2B probe, | .708 † | .669 | .610 | .587 | .654 | .490 | .998 | .850 |
| Ours: 4B probe, | .724 † | .713 | .621 | .624 | .716 | .500 | .951 | .855 |
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| setting | MMRB1 overall | MMRB1 trainable | VL-RB | VL-RB halluc. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| mined-negative probe, (recipe) | .724 | .633 | .680 | .774 |
| last-layer control | .696 | .575 | .659 | .700 |
| frozen head on RLAIF-V 15k | .676 | .598 | .618 | .677 |
| -CLIP blind / visible | .687 / .707 | .615 / .631 | .656 / .673 | .721 / .765 |
| verified, fresh / mid-training | .705 / .723 | .615 / .632 | .616 / .690 | .650 / .762 |
| base log-likelihood judge | .571 | .507 | .525 | .522 |
| text negatives | head | val | MMRB1 | trainable | VL-RB | halluc. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| cross-image only, | full FT | .99 | .559 | – | – | – |
| same-image perturbations, mixed | full FT | – | .582 | – | – | – |
| token edit, span, | frozen head | .820 | .673 | .574 | .709 | .781 |
| token edit, spans | frozen head | .973 | .673 | .563 | .713 | .797 |
| token edit, all spans (13.6) | frozen head | .996 | .681 | .576 | .707 | .797 |
| mixed operators, 15% (recipe) | frozen head | .92 | .682 | .584 | .679 | .769 |
| setting | val | MMRB1 | VL-RewardBench | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| overall | overall | macro | general | halluc. | ||
| (1.0 edit) | .820 | .673 | .709 | .665 | .630 | .781 |
| (3.0 edits) | .973 | .673 | .713 | .660 | .613 | .797 |
| all (13.6 edits) | .996 | .681 | .707 | .644 | .547 | .797 |
| ref: mixed-operator probe | – | .682 | .679 | – | – | .769 |
| training pairs (15k) | head | tokens | val | MMRB1 | trainable | VL-RB | VL-RB clean |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| perturbations, token-edit | frozen head | 6.4M | .820 | .673 | .574 | .709 | .747 |
| perturbations, mixed operators | frozen head | 6.1M | .92 | .682 | .584 | .679 | – |
| RLAIF-V | frozen head | 2.6M | .551 | .577 | .544 | .660 | .672 |
| RLAIF-V | full FT | 2.6M | .637 | .686 | .613 | .735 | .727 |
| base 2B (log-likelihood judge) | – | – | – | .563 | – | .569 | – |
| cell | greedy | random | shortest | loglik-2B | probe-2B | probe-8B | majority | wvote | oracle |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| hard QA, gen 2B | .684 | .672 | .580 | .714 | .742 | .762 | .736 | .752 | .940 |
| hard QA, gen 8B | .648 | .648 | .448 | .760 | .776 | .740 | .668 | .742 | .884 |
| counting/spatial, gen 2B | .535 | .502 | .440 | .577 | .631 | .622 | .606 | .627 | .929 |
| counting/spatial, gen 8B | .481 | .436 | .253 | .602 | .622 | .610 | .485 | .614 | .809 |
| captioning cell | greedy | probe-8B | verified | held-out | oracle |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| COCO, gen 2B | .346 | .376 | .312 | – | .066 |
| COCO, gen 8B | .374 | .400 | .332 | – | .090 |
| COCO-2, gen 2B | .362 | .396 | .294 | .324 | .056 |
| COCO-2, gen 8B | .402 | .414 | .344 | .358 | .094 |
| COCO | MathVista | MMMU | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| setting | words | CHAIRi | acc ( ) | acc ( ) |
| base (regenerated) | 245 | .083 | .546 | .334 |
| verified (3,462 pairs) | 242 | .073 | .542 ( ) | .346 ( ) |
| rm (2,000) | 228 | .079 | .528 ( ) | .338 ( ) |
| random (1,999, control) | 245 | .082 | .534 ( ) | .332 ( ) |
Multimodal Reward Modeling
Multimodal reward modeling builds evaluators that score images, video, audio, and agent behavior against human preferences or task goals.
See all 92 papers