HelpSteer2: Open-source dataset for training top-performing reward models
Open accessAbstract
High-quality preference datasets are essential for training reward models that can effectively guide large language models (LLMs) in generating high-quality responses aligned with human preferences. As LLMs become stronger and better aligned, permissively licensed preference datasets, such as Open Assistant, HH-RLHF, and HelpSteer need to be updated to remain effective for reward modeling. Methods that distil preference data from proprietary LLMs such as GPT-4 have restrictions on commercial usage imposed by model providers. To improve upon both generated responses and attribute labeling quality, we release HelpSteer2, a permissively licensed preference dataset (CC-BY-4.0). Using a powerful internal base model trained on HelpSteer2, we are able to achieve the SOTA score (92.0%) on Reward-Bench's primary dataset, outperforming currently listed open and proprietary models, as of June 12th, 2024. Notably, HelpSteer2 consists of only ten thousand response pairs, an order of magnitude fewer than existing preference datasets (e.g., HH-RLHF), which makes it highly efficient for training reward models. Our extensive experiments demonstrate that reward models trained with HelpSteer2 are effective in aligning LLMs. In particular, we propose SteerLM 2.0, a model alignment approach that can effectively make use of the rich multi-attribute score predicted by our reward models. HelpSteer2 is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/nvidia/HelpSteer2 and code is available at https://github.com/NVIDIA/NeMo-Aligner
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
HelpSteer2 represents the instruction-following domain, where the task is to generate helpful responses to user prompts, with outputs being model-generated chat responses annotated by humans on five attributes of helpfulness.
“HelpSteer2 (Wang et al., 2024) represents the instruction-following domain, where the task is to generate helpful responses to user prompts.The outputs are model-generated chat responses, annotated by humans on five attributes of helpfulness.”
From Learning to Judge: LLMs Designing and Applying Evaluation Rubrics (2026) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
FinQA: A Dataset of Numerical Reasoning over Financial Data
Chen, Z., Chen, W., Smiley, C., Shah, S., Borova, I., Langdon, D., Moussa, R., Beane, M., Huang, T.-H., Routledge, B., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp-main.300 · Cited by 258 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Details for each evaluation metric is available in Appendix H.”
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Piotr Bojanowski, Edouard Grave, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. Enriching word vectors with subword information. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 5:135-146, 2017.
- Maarten Grootendorst. Bertopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based tf-idf procedure. arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.05794, 2022. · arXiv
- Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, Tom Brown, Miljan Martic, Shane Legg, and Dario Amodei. Deep re- inforcement learning from human preferences. In I. Guyon, U. Von Luxburg, S. Bengio, H. Wallach, R. Fergus, S. Vishwanathan, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017.
- Ron Artstein and Massimo Poesio. Survey article: Inter-coder agreement for computational linguistics. Computational Linguistics, 34(4):555-596, 2008.
- Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017. · arXiv
- Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio, editors, Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics.
- Yann Dubois, Balázs Galambosi, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B Hashimoto. Length-controlled alpacaeval: A simple way to debias automatic evaluators. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.04475, 2024. · arXiv
- Ning Ding, Yulin Chen, Bokai Xu, Yujia Qin, Zhi Zheng, Shengding Hu, Zhiyuan Liu, Maosong Sun, and Bowen Zhou. Enhancing chat language models by scaling high-quality instructional conversations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14233, 2023. · arXiv
- Tomohiro Sawada, Daniel Paleka, Alexander Havrilla, Pranav Tadepalli, Paula Vidas, Alexander Kra- nias, John J Nay, Kshitij Gupta, and Aran Komatsuzaki. Arb: Advanced reasoning benchmark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.13692, 2023. · arXiv
- Xiaoxuan Wang, Ziniu Hu, Pan Lu, Yanqiao Zhu, Jieyu Zhang, Satyen Subramaniam, Arjun R Loomba, Shichang Zhang, Yizhou Sun, and Wei Wang. Scibench: Evaluating college-level scientific problem- solving abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.10635, 2023. · arXiv
- Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let's verify step by step. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.20050, 2023. · arXiv
- Panupong Pasupat and Percy Liang. Compositional semantic parsing on semi-structured tables. arXiv preprint arXiv:1508.00305, 2015. · arXiv
- Reiichiro Nakano, Jacob Hilton, Suchir Balaji, Jeff Wu, Long Ouyang, Christina Kim, Christopher Hesse, Shantanu Jain, Vineet Kosaraju, William Saunders, Xu Jiang, Karl Cobbe, Tyna Eloundou, Gretchen Krueger, Kevin Button, Matthew Knight, Benjamin Chess, and John Schulman. Webgpt: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedback. In arXiv, 2021.
- Kawin Ethayarajh, Yejin Choi, and Swabha Swayamdipta. Understanding dataset difficulty with V-usable information. In Kamalika Chaudhuri, Stefanie Jegelka, Le Song, Csaba Szepesvari, Gang Niu, and Sivan Sabato, editors, Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5988-6008. PMLR, 17-23 Jul 2022.
- John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy opti- mization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347, 2017. · arXiv
- Nisan Stiennon, Long Ouyang, Jeff Wu, Daniel M. Ziegler, Ryan Lowe, Chelsea Voss, Alec Radford, Dario Amodei, and Paul Christiano. Learning to summarize from human feedback. In NeurIPS, 2020.
- Kawin Ethayarajh, Yejin Choi, and Swabha Swayamdipta. Understanding dataset difficulty with V-usable information. In Kamalika Chaudhuri, Stefanie Jegelka, Le Song, Csaba Szepesvari, Gang Niu, and Sivan Sabato, editors, Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 162 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 5988-6008. PMLR, 17-23 Jul 2022.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Muennighoff, N., Yang, Z., Shi, W., Li, X. L., Fei-Fei, L., Hajishirzi, H., Zettlemoyer, L., Liang, P., Candes, E., & Hashimoto, T. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1025 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Muennighoff, N., Yang, Z., Shi, W., Li, X. L., Fei-Fei, L., Hajishirzi, H., Zettlemoyer, L., Liang, P., Candès, E., & Hashimoto, T. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.19393 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Learning to Judge: LLMs Designing and Applying Evaluation Rubrics
Siro, C., Aliannejadi, P., & Aliannejadi, M. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-eacl.335 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
User Feedback in Human-LLM Dialogues: A Lens to Understand Users But Noisy as a Learning Signal
Liu, Y., Zhang, M. J. Q., & Choi, E. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.23158 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
No Free Labels: Limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge Without Human Grounding
Krumdick, M., Lovering, C., Reddy, V., Ebner, S., & Tanner, C. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.05061 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
RewardBench 2: Advancing Reward Model Evaluation
Malik, S., Pyatkin, V., Land, S., Morrison, J., Smith, N. A., Hajishirzi, H., & Lambert, N. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.01937 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“Hyperparameters : While common practice is to train reward models for only one epoch [1, 2, 3, 39, 40, 41], several recent works have found strong results with training for two or more [38, 41, 54, 55], so we experiment with training over 1, 2, and 3 epochs.”
The Good, the Bad and the Constructive: Automatically Measuring Peer Review's Utility for Authors
Sadallah, A., Baumgärtner, T., Gurevych, I., & Briscoe, T. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.04484
“While many human preference datasets have been collected in a pair-wise setting, where humans rank two (or more) responses, point-wise data has also shown promising results (Wang et al., 2024a,b).”
JudgeMoE: Distributional Aggregation for LLM-as-a-Judge
Liu, Y., James, J., Wang, Y., Zhao, K., Xiao, C., & Lin, C. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2610.07109
“We evaluate JudgeMoE on direct-score and pairwise benchmarks spanning summarization (SummEval (Fabbri et al., 2021 and HelpSteer2 (Wang et al., 2024b)), reasoning/explanation quality (ROSCOE-eSNLI (Cam-buru et al., 2018; Golovneva et al., 2023)), translation quality estimation (WMT MQM (Freitag et…”
InfluentialRoPoLL: Robust Panel of LLM Judges
Acharya, A., Pan, K. W., & Verkhovsky, B. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.30931
- Authors
- Wang, Z., Dong, Y., Delalleau, O., Zeng, J., Shen, G., Egert, D., Zhang, J. J., Sreedhar, M. N., & Kuchaiev, O.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- Pages
- 1474-1501
- ISSN
- 1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2406.08673
- OpenAlex
- W4415799187
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 2.02
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- reward models, open-source dataset, training data, large language models, reinforcement learning from human feedback
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review