Reward Model Evaluation via Automatically-Ranked Policy Alignment
Aoran Wang, Lei Ou, Yang Yu, Zongzhang Zhang
Abstract
Evaluating reward models is a fundamental challenge in Reinforcement Learning (RL), particularly in settings where the reward model is learned or manually designed. The standard paradigm for Reward Model Evaluation (RME) involves training an optimal policy via RL on the given reward model and assessing model quality through the performance of the resulting policy. However, this approach conflates the quality of the reward model with the effectiveness of RL training, and is computationally expensive due to the need for policy optimization. Recent RME methods attempt to circumvent this issue by evaluating reward models directly, without RL, but often rely on impractical assumptions such as access to a ground-truth reward or fail to utilize available supervision in a fine-grained manner. To overcome these limitations, we propose the Policy Preference Alignment Coefficient (PPAC), a novel metric for RME that requires neither RL training nor ground-truth rewards. PPAC first generates a sequence of automatically ranked policy preferences that guarantee monotonic improvement in the policy value, and then quantifies the alignment between these generated preferences and those implied by the candidate reward model. Experimental results across gridworld and continuous control task demonstrate that PPAC yields preference sequences with consistently increasing policy values and outperforms existing metrics in evaluating reward model quality.
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 ea772285-3c23-4b08-b61b-b51628ce8560Builds on15
- Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackLong Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida et al.NeurIPS 2022 · 24,707 citations
- Implementation Matters in Deep RL: A Case Study on PPO and TRPOLogan Engstrom, Andrew Ilyas, Shibani Santurkar, Dimitris Tsipras et al.ICLR 2020 · 305 citations
- Principled Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback from Pairwise or K-wise ComparisonsBanghua Zhu, Michael I. Jordan, Jiantao JiaoICML 2023 · 273 citations
- IQ-Learn: Inverse soft-Q Learning for ImitationDivyansh Garg, Shuvam Chakraborty, Chris Cundy, Jiaming Song et al.NeurIPS 2021 · 271 citations
- The Perils of Trial-and-Error Reward Design: Misdesign through Overfitting and Invalid Task SpecificationsSerena Booth, W. Bradley Knox, Julie Shah, Scott Niekum et al.AAAI 2023 · 103 citations
Related papers
- Larger or Smaller Reward Margins to Select Preferences for LLM Alignment?Kexin Huang, Junkang Wu, Ziqian Chen, Xue Wang et al.ICML 2025
- Rethinking Reward Model Evaluation: Are We Barking up the Wrong Tree?Xueru Wen, Jie Lou, Yaojie Lu, Hongyu Lin et al.ICLR 2025
- PaTaRM: Bridging Pairwise and Pointwise Signals via Preference-Aware Task-Adaptive Reward ModelingAi Jian, Jingqing Ruan, Xing Ma, Dailin Li et al.ACL 2026 · 5 citations
- Quantile Reward Policy Optimization: Alignment with Pointwise Regression and Exact Partition FunctionsSimon Matrenok, Skander Moalla, Caglar GulcehreNeurIPS 2025 · 6 citations
- Preference Learning Algorithms Do Not Learn Preference RankingsAngelica Chen, Sadhika Malladi, Lily H. Zhang, Xinyi Chen et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 60 citations
