Reward models (RMs)  are at the crux of successful RLHF to align pretrained models to human preferences, yet there has been relatively little study that focuses on evaluation of those reward models.
Evaluating reward models presents an opportunity to understand the opaque technologies used for alignment of language models and which values are embedded in them.
To date, very few descriptors of capabilities, training methods, or open-source reward models exist.
In this paper, we presentRewardBench, a benchmark dataset and code-base for evaluation, to enhance scientific understanding of reward models.
TheRewardBenchdataset is a collection of prompt-win-lose trios spanning chat, reasoning, and safety, to benchmark how reward models perform on challenging, structured and out-of-distribution queries.
We created specific comparison datasets for RMs that have subtle, but verifiable reasons (e.g. bugs, incorrect facts)  why one answer should be preferred to another.
On theRewardBenchleaderboard, we evaluate reward models trained with a variety of methods, such as the direct MLE training of classifiers and the implicit reward modeling of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) , and on a spectrum of datasets.
We present many findings on propensity for refusals, reasoning limitations, and instruction following shortcomings of various reward models towards a better understanding of the RLHF process.