Reward Models are Metrics in a Trench Coat

Sebastian Gehrmann
10/3/2025
cs.CLcs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

The emergence of reinforcement learning in post-training of large language models has sparked significant interest in reward models. Reward models assess the quality of sampled model outputs to generate training signals. This task is also performed by evaluation metrics that monitor the performance of an AI model. We find that the two research areas are mostly separate, leading to redundant terminology and repeated pitfalls. Common challenges include susceptibility to spurious correlations, impact on downstream reward hacking, methods to improve data quality, and approaches to meta-evaluation. Our position paper argues that a closer collaboration between the fields can help overcome these issues. To that end, we show how metrics outperform reward models on specific tasks and provide an extensive survey of the two areas. Grounded in this survey, we point to multiple research topics in which closer alignment can improve reward models and metrics in areas such as preference elicitation methods, avoidance of spurious correlations and reward hacking, and calibration-aware meta-evaluation.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{gehrmann2025reward,
  title  = {Reward Models are Metrics in a Trench Coat},
  author = {Sebastian Gehrmann},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2510.03231},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2510.03231v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2510.03231.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2510.03231)

Discussion