2025/03/31 by Nuo Chen, Chen, Nuo, Zhiyuan Hu +11 · 44 citations
Computer Science · Medicine · #Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education #Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) #Feature (linguistics) #Non-monotonic logic #Reinforcement learning #Scalability #Stability (learning theory) #Topic Modeling #Value (mathematics)
paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.00050
published in arXiv (Cornell University) (Cornell University)
openalex publication_date 2025/03/31 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted as evaluators, offering a scalable alternative to human annotation. However, existing supervised fine-tuning (SFT) approaches often fall short in domains that demand complex reasoning. Judgment is inherently reasoning-intensive: beyond surface-level scoring, it requires verifying evidence, identifying errors, and justifying decisions. Through the analysis of evaluation tasks, we find a negative correlation between SFT performance gains and the proportion of reasoning-demanding samples, revealing the limits of SFT in such scenarios. To address this, we introduce JudgeLRM, a family of judgment-oriented LLMs, trained using reinforcement learning (RL) with judge-wise, outcome-driven rewards to activate reasoning capabilities. JudgeLRM consistently outperform SFT-tuned baselines in the same size, as well as other RL and SFT variants, and even surpass state-of-the-art reasoning models: notably, JudgeLRM-3B/4B exceeds GPT-4, while JudgeLRM-7B/8B/14B outperforms DeepSeek-R1 by over 2% in F1 score, with particularly strong gains on reasoning-heavy tasks. Our findings underscore the value of RL in unlocking reasoning-aligned LLM judges.