Reasoning LLMs-as-Judges, which benefit from inference-time scaling, offer a promising path for extending the success of reasoning models to non-verifiable domains, where output quality cannot be directly checked. While reasoning judges have shown gains on static evaluation benchmarks, their impact on actual LLM post-training remains underexplored. Therefore, we conduct a controlled study of non-reasoning and reasoning LLM-judges in reinforcement-learning-based LLM alignment. In our synthetic setting, a "gold" judge provides preference annotations for training smaller judges and evaluates the resulting policies. We find that non-reasoning judges lead to the standard reward hacking pattern: policies receive higher rewards from the training judge but lower rewards from the gold judge. Reasoning judges, in contrast, produce policies with high gold-judge rewards. However, a qualitative analysis shows that these high rewards arise from adversarial outputs that exploit the gold judge’s preferences and transfer to other LLM-judges on benchmarks like Arena-Hard. Together with our ablations on judge training design choices, these findings reveal both the promise and risks of using reasoning LLM-judges for non-verifiable LLM post-training.

Reward modeling is crucial for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences, especially in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). However, current reward models mainly produce scalar scores and struggle to incorporate critiques in a natural language format. We hypothesize that predicting both critiques and the scalar reward would improve reward modeling ability. Motivated by this, we propose Critic-RM, a framework that improves reward models using self-generated critiques without extra supervision. Critic-RM employs a two-stage process: generating and filtering high-quality critiques, followed by joint fine-tuning on reward prediction and critique generation. Experiments across benchmarks show that Critic-RM improves reward modeling accuracy by 3.7%-7.3% compared to standard reward models and LLM judges, demonstrating strong performance and data efficiency. Additional studies further validate the effectiveness of the generated critiques.

Developing intelligent persuasive conversational agents to change people’s opinions and actions for social good is the frontier in advancing the ethical development of automated dialogue systems. To do so, the first step is to understand the intricate organization of strategic disclosures and appeals employed in human persuasion conversations. We designed an online persuasion task where one participant was asked to persuade the other to donate to a specific charity. We collected a large dataset with 1,017 dialogues and annotated emerging persuasion strategies from a subset. Based on the annotation, we built a baseline classifier with context information and sentence-level features to predict the 10 persuasion strategies used in the corpus. Furthermore, to develop an understanding of personalized persuasion processes, we analyzed the relationships between individuals’ demographic and psychological backgrounds including personality, morality, value systems, and their willingness for donation. Then, we analyzed which types of persuasion strategies led to a greater amount of donation depending on the individuals’ personal backgrounds. This work lays the ground for developing a personalized persuasive dialogue system.

User simulators are essential for training reinforcement learning (RL) based dialog models. The performance of the simulator directly impacts the RL policy. However, building a good user simulator that models real user behaviors is challenging. We propose a method of standardizing user simulator building that can be used by the community to compare dialog system quality using the same set of user simulators fairly. We present implementations of six user simulators trained with different dialog planning and generation methods. We then calculate a set of automatic metrics to evaluate the quality of these simulators both directly and indirectly. We also ask human users to assess the simulators directly and indirectly by rating the simulated dialogs and interacting with the trained systems. This paper presents a comprehensive evaluation framework for user simulator study and provides a better understanding of the pros and cons of different user simulators, as well as their impacts on the trained systems.