@@ -7,11 +7,19 @@ In the era of LLM, we can extend their capabilities into the multimodal domain b
In this section, we use the visual language, speech generation, and diffusion models to discuss the application of RL in multimodal models.
\subsection{Visual Language Models}
While RL is commonly used to train LLMs, its application to other domains has been a prominent research topic. In multimodal language models\footnote{A multimodal language model is defined as a model that integrates an LLM with a multimodal encoder, such as CLIP \citep{radford-etal:2021learning}, allowing the LLM to process inputs beyond text, such as images. Recent literature has also introduced the use of LLMs for generating outputs in non-text modalities, such as images and speech \citep{xu-etal:2025qwen2,zhang-etal:2024mm}. However, in this section, we focus on the former definition of multimodal language models.}, for example, a notable trend is to perform RL training to improve their trustworthiness and helpfulness. This section considers Visual Language Models (VLMs), which connect a visual encoder to an LLM through a linear projector, facilitating general-purpose visual and language understanding. VLMs are currently the most explored extension in multimodal language research, and they form the foundation for many open-source multimodal language models, such as Qwen2.5-VL \citep{qwenTeam:2025qwen2.5-VL} and LLaMA-3.2-11B-Vision \citep{grattafiori-etal:2024llama}.
Training LLMs and VLMs with RL exhibits only minimal differences, primarily related to the input content. Unlike the textual input used for LLMs, the input for VLMs typically comprises a combination of one or multiple images and an instruction, denoted by $(\mathrm{\mathbf{I}}, \mathrm{\mathbf{x}})$, where $\mathrm{\mathbf{I}}$ represents the input images. These images are encoded into representations that are either concatenated with instruction embeddings or integrated through cross-attention mechanisms into the LLM. In practice, this subtle difference does not significantly affect the applicability of RL algorithms to VLMs. As a result, the RL training process for LLMs, as described in Section \ref{sec:example-using-rl-training-llms}, can be seamlessly adapted to train VLMs without major improvements \citep{yu-etal:2024rlhf,wang-etal:2024rovrm,zang2025internlm,ji2025safe}.
\caption{An overview of the multi-stage training approach for visual reward models.}
\label{fig:preference-transfer}
\end{figure*}
However, training VLMs with RL is not a low-hanging fruit in practical applications. This is because it typically encounters the challenge of training a visual reward model due to the scarcity of high-quality visual preference data. One straightforward approach to address this issue is to generate visual preference data through the automatic preference data generation method described in Section \ref{sec:automatic-preference-data-generation}\citep{yu-etal:2024rlaif}. Another alternative is a multi-stage training approach for the visual reward model, motivated by a simple idea: human preferences are well captured in text, and these preferences can be transferred across modalities \citep{wang-etal:2024rovrm}. By leveraging textual preference data, this approach reduces the dependence on visual preference data in training a visual reward model. More specifically, as illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:preference-transfer}, we can train a visual reward model in the following three stages:
\begin{itemize}
\item Stage 1: pre-training with large-scale textual preference data. Given the transferability of human preferences across different modalities, we can begin by using large-scale textual preference data to pre-train the visual reward model. Note that the projector parameters are frozen without images. This stage can be considered as providing a stronger starting point for training the visual reward model, as it enables the model to pre-learn general human preferences.
...
...
@@ -23,14 +31,7 @@ In this process, not all preference data may align with the preferences used in
As discussed in Section~\ref{sec:generative-reward-models}, reward reasoning models have demonstrated superior performance in reward prediction. A natural question then arises: \textit{can reward reasoning capabilities also be transferred from text to multimodal settings?} Recent work by \cite{wang2026msrl} provides empirical evidence supporting this hypothesis. By following a similar multi-stage training paradigm, they show that reward reasoning capabilities can indeed be effectively transferred across modalities, further enhancing the performance of visual reward models.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\input{section7/Figures/rovrm.tex}
}
\caption{RoVRM}
\label{fig:preference-transfer}
\end{figure*}
Apart from preference data, another approach to improving the visual model is to integrate additional image content, such as image captions, into the reward model \citep{sun-etal:2023aligning}. This approach aims to achieve factually augmented reward prediction, addressing reward hacking. Specifically, in the original setup, the reward model predicts a reward based solely on the image, input, and output; that is, the reward model’s input is $[\mathbf{I}, \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}]$. In the factually augmented setup, the reward model also receives additional input in the form of the textual image caption $\mathbf{C}$, resulting in an input of $[\mathbf{I}, \mathbf{C}, \mathbf{x}, \mathbf{y}]$. The basic idea is that the backbone of the visual reward model remains a well-trained LLM with an in-context learning ability. With this ability, we can provide additional content to help the model predict rewards more accurately.
