What Makes a Reward Model a Good Teacher? An Optimization Perspective
Noam Razin, Zixuan Wang, Hubert Strauss, Stanley Wei, Jason D. Lee, Sanjeev Arora · Mar 19, 2025 · Citations: 0
How to use this page
Moderate trustUse this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.
Best use
Background context only
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Evidence quality
Moderate
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Abstract
The success of Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) critically depends on the quality of the reward model. However, while this quality is primarily evaluated through accuracy, it remains unclear whether accuracy fully captures what makes a reward model an effective teacher. We address this question from an optimization perspective. First, we prove that regardless of how accurate a reward model is, if it induces low reward variance, then the RLHF objective suffers from a flat landscape. Consequently, even a perfectly accurate reward model can lead to extremely slow optimization, underperforming less accurate models that induce higher reward variance. We additionally show that a reward model that works well for one language model can induce low reward variance, and thus a flat objective landscape, for another. These results establish a fundamental limitation of evaluating reward models solely based on accuracy or independently of the language model they guide. Experiments using models of up to 8B parameters corroborate our theory, demonstrating the interplay between reward variance, accuracy, and reward maximization rate. Overall, our findings highlight that beyond accuracy, a reward model needs to induce sufficient variance for efficient optimization.