Reward Models Inherit Value Biases from Pretraining
Brian R. Christian, Jessica A. F. Thompson, Elle Michelle Yang, Vincent Adam, Hannah Kirk, Christopher Summerfield, Tsvetomira Dumbalska
Abstract
Reward models (RMs) are central to aligning large language models (LLMs) with human values but have received less attention than pretrained and post-trained LLMs themselves. Because RMs are initialized from LLMs, they inherit representations that shape their behavior, but the nature and extent of this influence remain understudied. In a comprehensive study of 10 leading open-weight RMs using validated psycholinguistic corpora, we show that RMs exhibit significant differences along multiple dimensions of human value as a function of their base model. Using the "Big Two" psychological axes, we show a robust preference of Llama RMs for "agency" and a corresponding robust preference of Gemma RMs for "communion." This phenomenon holds even when the preference data and finetuning process are identical, and we trace it back to the logits of the respective instruction-tuned and pretrained models. These log-probability differences themselves can be formulated as an implicit RM; we derive usable implicit reward scores and show that they exhibit the very same agency/communion difference. We run experiments training RMs with ablations for preference data source and quantity, which demonstrate that this effect is not only repeatable but surprisingly durable. Despite RMs being designed to represent human preferences, our evidence shows that their outputs are influenced by the pretrained LLMs on which they are based. This work underscores the importance of safety and alignment efforts at the pretraining stage, and makes clear that open-source developers' choice of base model is as much a consideration of values as of performance.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext b45118fb-679b-4398-9de4-878a894925aeCited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on15
- LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language ModelsEdward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu et al.ICLR 2022 · 18,833 citations
- Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward ModelRafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Christopher D. Manning et al.NeurIPS 2023 · 10,924 citations
- Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?Shibani Santurkar, Esin Durmus, Faisal Ladhak, Cinoo Lee et al.ICML 2023 · 764 citations
- The Pitfalls of Simplicity Bias in Neural NetworksHarshay Shah, Kaustav Tamuly, Aditi Raghunathan, Prateek Jain et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 503 citations
- Pretraining Language Models with Human PreferencesTomasz Korbak, Kejian Shi, Angelica Chen, Rasika Vinayak Bhalerao et al.ICML 2023 · 287 citations
Related papers
- Interpreting Language Reward Models via Contrastive ExplanationsJunqi Jiang, Tom Bewley, Saumitra Mishra, Freddy Lécué et al.ICLR 2025
- Debiasing Reward Models via Causally Motivated Inference-Time InterventionKazutoshi Shinoda, Kosuke Nishida, Kyosuke NishidaACL 2026
- Moral Alignment for LLM AgentsElizaveta Tennant, Stephen Hailes, Mirco MusolesiICLR 2025
- GRAM: A Generative Foundation Reward Model for Reward GeneralizationChenglong Wang, Yang Gan, Yifu Huo, Yongyu Mu et al.ICML 2025
- Beyond Pairwise: Empowering LLM Alignment With (Ranked) Choice ModelingYuxuan Tang, Yifan FengICLR 2026 · 1 citation
