To keep pace with the increasing velocity of large language models (LLM) development, model output evaluation has transitioned away from time-consuming human evaluation to automatic evaluation, where LLMs themselves are tasked with assessing and critiquing other model outputs. LLM-as-judge models are a class of generative evaluators that excel in evaluating relatively simple domains, like chat quality, but struggle in reasoning intensive domains where model responses contain more substantive and challenging content. To remedy existing judge shortcomings, we explore training judges with reinforcement learning (RL). We make three key contributions: (1) We propose the Equivalent Initial State Group Relative Policy Optimization (EIS-GRPO) algorithm, which allows us to train our judge to be robust to positional biases that arise in more complex evaluation settings. (2) We introduce ReasoningJudgeBench, a benchmark that evaluates judges in diverse reasoning settings not covered by prior work. (3) We train Judge for Reasoning (J4R), a 7B judge trained with EIS-GRPO that outperforms GPT-4o and the next best small judge by 6.7% and 9%, matching or exceeding the performance of larger GRPO-trained judges on both JudgeBench and ReasoningJudgeBench.

Large language model (LLM)-based reasoning systems have recently achieved gold medal-level performance in the IMO 2025 competition, writing mathematical proofs where, to receive full credit, each step must be not only correct but also sufficiently supported. To train LLM-based reasoners in such challenging, open-ended settings, strong verifiers capable of catching step-level mistakes are necessary prerequisites. We introduce Hard2Verify, a human-annotated, step-level verification benchmark produced with over 500 hours of human labor. Hard2Verify is designed to rigorously assess step-level verifiers at the frontier: Verifiers must provide step-level annotations or identify the first error in responses generated by frontier LLMs for very recent, challenging, and open-ended math questions. We evaluate 29 generative critics and process reward models, demonstrating that, beyond a few standouts, open-source verifiers lag closed source models. We subsequently analyze what drives poor performance in step-level verification, the impacts of scaling verifier compute, as well as fundamental questions such as self-verification and verification-generation dynamics.

A key challenge in Multi-Document Summarization (MDS) is effectively integrating information from multiple sources while maintaining coherence and topical relevance. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive results in single-document summarization, their performance on MDS still leaves room for improvement. In this paper, we propose a topic-guided reinforcement learning approach to improve content selection in MDS. We first show that explicitly prompting models with topic labels enhances the informativeness. Building on this insight, we propose a novel topic reward within the Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) framework to measure topic alignment between the generated summary and source documents. Experimental results on the Multi-News and Multi-XScience datasets demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms strong baselines, highlighting the effectiveness of leveraging topical cues in MDS.

To meet the increasing need for timely and accurate evaluation of large language model (LLM) responses, training LLM-as-judges to evaluate and critique other model responses has emerged as a popular paradigm. However, existing judge models are largely trained with supervised finetuning (SFT) on small data scales to perform limited types of evaluation tasks, fundamentally limiting generalization.To meet the need for strong, generalized judge models, we explore training foundational judge models at large data scales (680K) with direct preference optimization (DPO). Using four training tasks, we form three types of DPO preference pairs targeting different aspects of evaluation: Generating meaningful critiques, making accurate judgements, and understanding what comprises good and bad responses. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we train judge models of three sizes: 8B parameters, 12B, and 70B, and evaluate on a comprehensive suite of 13 benchmarks (7 pairwise, 4 single rating, and 2 classification). Our models achieve the best aggregate performance, with even our 8B model outperforming GPT-4o in pairwise benchmarks. Further analysis shows that our judge models produce factual and actionable critiques and serve as strong foundational judges for continued finetuning.

The large language model (LLM)-as-judge paradigm has been used to meet the demand for a cheap, reliable, and fast evaluation of model outputs during AI system development and post-deployment monitoring. While judge models—LLMs finetuned to specialize in assessing and critiquing model outputs—have been touted as general purpose evaluators, they are typically evaluated only on non-contextual scenarios, such as instruction following. The omission of contextual settings—those where external information is used as context to generate an output—is surprising given the increasing prevalence of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and summarization use cases. Contextual assessment is uniquely challenging, as evaluation often depends on practitioner priorities, leading to conditional evaluation criteria (e.g., comparing responses based on factuality and then considering completeness if they are equally factual). To address the gap, we propose ContextualJudgeBench, a judge benchmark with 2,000 challenging response pairs across eight splits inspired by real-world contextual evaluation scenarios. We build our benchmark with a multi-pronged data construction pipeline that leverages both existing human annotations and model-based perturbations. Our comprehensive study across 11 judge models and 7 general purpose models, reveals that the contextual information and assessment criteria present a significant challenge to even state-of-the-art models. For example, o1, the best-performing model, barely reaches 55% consistent accuracy.