The DOI matches its DataCite record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Comprehensive Survey of Reward Models: Taxonomy, Applications, Challenges, and Future
Abstract
Reward Model (RM) has demonstrated impressive potential for enhancing Large Language Models (LLM), as RM can serve as a proxy for human preferences, providing signals to guide LLMs' behavior in various tasks. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive overview of relevant research, exploring RMs from the perspectives of preference collection, reward modeling, and usage. Next, we introduce the applications of RMs and discuss the benchmarks for evaluation. Furthermore, we conduct an in-depth analysis of the challenges existing in the field and dive into the potential research directions. This paper is dedicated to providing beginners with a comprehensive introduction to RMs and facilitating future studies. The resources are publicly available at github\footnote{https://github.com/JLZhong23/awesome-reward-models}.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“PBRFT commonly features a reward function with verifiable response correctness, which may be implemented using either a rule-based verifier (DeepSeek-AI et al., 2025) or a neural network-parameterized reward model (Zhong et al., 2025).”
From The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey (2025) · cites this paper as Zhong et al., 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Grandmaster level in StarCraft II using multi-agent reinforcement learning
Vinyals, O., Babuschkin, I., Czarnecki, W. M., Mathieu, M., Dudzik, A., Chung, J., Choi, D. H., Powell, R., Ewalds, T., Georgiev, P., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1724-z · Cited by 3,455
Mastering Chess and Shogi by Self-Play with a General Reinforcement Learning Algorithm
Silver, D., Hubert, T., Schrittwieser, J., Antonoglou, I., Lai, M., Guez, A., Lanctot, M., Sifre, L., Kumaran, D., Graepel, T., et al. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1712.01815 · Cited by 1,102 · cited 1×
“Besides, when AI systems surpass humans in some tasks (Silver et al., 2017; Vinyals et al., 2019), it’s hard for humans to evaluate the complex behaviors produced by superhuman models (Burns et al., 2024a).”
Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters
Snell, C., Lee, J., Xu, K., & Kumar, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.03314 · Cited by 27
Improve Mathematical Reasoning in Language Models by Automated Process Supervision
Luo, L., Liu, Y., Liu, R., Phatale, S., Guo, M., Lara, H., Li, Y., Shu, L., Zhu, Y., Meng, L., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.06592 · Cited by 8
Self-citationProcess Reinforcement through Implicit Rewards
Cui, G., Yuan, L., Wang, Z., Wang, H., Zhang, Y., Chen, J., Li, W., He, B., Fan, Y., Yu, T., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.01456 · Cited by 3
Self-citation
Cited by
The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey
Zhang, G., Geng, H., Yu, X., Yin, Z., Zhang, Z., Tan, Z., Zhou, H., Li, Z., Xue, X., Li, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02547 · Cited by 229
Self-citationZhang, S., Yin, M., Zhang, J., Liu, J., Han, Z., Zhang, J., Li, B., Wang, C., Wang, H., Chen, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.00212 · Cited by 1
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhong, J., Shen, W., Li, Y., Gao, S., Lu, H., Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhou, W., Gu, J., & Zou, L.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2504.12328
- References
- 5
- Type
- Preprint
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
