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.
@article{arxiv.2504.00050,
title = {JudgeLRM: Large Reasoning Models as a Judge},
author = {Nuo Chen and Zhiyuan Hu and Qingyun Zou and Jiaying Wu and Qian Wang and Bryan Hooi and Bingsheng He},
journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.00050},
year = {2025}
}