​
Advanced Reward Functions

This guide covers advanced patterns and techniques for creating sophisticated reward functions.

​
Overview

Advanced reward functions go beyond simple accuracy checks to provide nuanced evaluation that considers multiple factors, context, and domain-specific requirements.

​
Multi-Metric Evaluation

Combine multiple evaluation criteria: 
from reward_kit import reward_function
from reward_kit.rewards import accuracy, length, format_compliance
import numpy as np

@reward_function
def multi_metric_reward(response: str, expected_response: str, **kwargs) -> float:
    """
    Advanced reward function combining accuracy, length, and format compliance.
    """
    # Base accuracy score
    acc_score = accuracy(response, expected_response)

    # Length appropriateness (prefer responses between 50-200 chars)
    len_score = length_appropriateness(response, min_len=50, max_len=200)

    # Format compliance (if response should follow a pattern)
    format_score = check_format_compliance(response)

    # Weighted combination
    weights = [0.6, 0.2, 0.2]  # accuracy, length, format
    scores = [acc_score, len_score, format_score]

    return np.average(scores, weights=weights)

def length_appropriateness(response: str, min_len: int, max_len: int) -> float:
    """Helper function to score length appropriateness."""
    length = len(response)
    if min_len <= length <= max_len:
        return 1.0
    elif length < min_len:
        return max(0.0, length / min_len)
    else:
        return max(0.0, 1.0 - (length - max_len) / max_len)

def check_format_compliance(response: str) -> float:
    """Helper function to check format compliance."""
    # Example: Check if response follows expected structure
    if response.startswith("Answer:") and response.endswith("."):
        return 1.0
    return 0.5

​
Context-Aware Evaluation

Consider context when evaluating responses: 
@reward_function
def context_aware_reward(response: str, expected_response: str, context: dict = None) -> float:
    """
    Reward function that considers context information.
    """
    base_score = accuracy(response, expected_response)

    if context:
        # Adjust score based on difficulty
        difficulty = context.get('difficulty', 'medium')
        if difficulty == 'hard' and base_score > 0.8:
            base_score *= 1.2  # Bonus for hard questions
        elif difficulty == 'easy' and base_score < 0.5:
            base_score *= 0.8  # Penalty for easy questions

        # Consider response time if available
        response_time = context.get('response_time_seconds', 0)
        if response_time > 0:
            # Slight bonus for quick accurate responses
            time_bonus = max(0, (10 - response_time) / 100)
            base_score += time_bonus

    return min(base_score, 1.0)

​
Domain-Specific Evaluation

Create reward functions tailored to specific domains: 
@reward_function
def code_quality_reward(response: str, expected_response: str, **kwargs) -> float:
    """
    Evaluates code responses considering multiple quality factors.
    """
    import ast

    score = 0.0

    # Check if code is syntactically valid
    try:
        ast.parse(response)
        score += 0.3  # Syntax correctness
    except SyntaxError:
        return 0.0  # Invalid syntax gets zero score

    # Check for best practices
    if "def " in response:  # Function definition
        score += 0.2

    if "# " in response or '"""' in response:  # Comments/docstrings
        score += 0.1

    # Check for specific patterns
    if "import " in response and "from " in response:
        score += 0.1  # Good import practices

    # Length consideration (not too short, not too long)
    lines = response.split('\n')
    if 5 <= len(lines) <= 50:
        score += 0.1

    # Functional correctness (if test cases available)
    test_cases = kwargs.get('test_cases', [])
    if test_cases:
        correctness_score = evaluate_code_correctness(response, test_cases)
        score += 0.2 * correctness_score

    return min(score, 1.0)

def evaluate_code_correctness(code: str, test_cases: list) -> float:
    """Helper to evaluate code correctness against test cases."""
    # This would implement actual code execution and testing
    # For safety, this is a placeholder
    return 0.8  # Placeholder score

​
Statistical Evaluation

Use statistical methods for more robust evaluation: 
from scipy.stats import pearsonr
from sklearn.metrics.pairwise import cosine_similarity
import numpy as np

@reward_function
def statistical_similarity_reward(response: str, expected_response: str, **kwargs) -> float:
    """
    Uses statistical methods to evaluate response similarity.
    """
    # Convert to numerical representations (e.g., using embeddings)
    response_embedding = get_text_embedding(response)
    expected_embedding = get_text_embedding(expected_response)

    # Cosine similarity
    cos_sim = cosine_similarity([response_embedding], [expected_embedding])[0][0]

    # Pearson correlation (if applicable)
    if len(response_embedding) == len(expected_embedding):
        corr, _ = pearsonr(response_embedding, expected_embedding)
        corr = max(0, corr)  # Only positive correlations
    else:
        corr = 0

    # Combine metrics
    final_score = 0.7 * cos_sim + 0.3 * corr

    return max(0.0, min(1.0, final_score))

def get_text_embedding(text: str) -> np.ndarray:
    """Placeholder for text embedding function."""
    # In practice, use a real embedding model
    return np.random.rand(100)  # Placeholder

​
Hierarchical Evaluation

Create reward functions with hierarchical evaluation: 
@reward_function
def hierarchical_reward(response: str, expected_response: str, **kwargs) -> float:
    """
    Hierarchical evaluation with multiple levels of assessment.
    """
    # Level 1: Basic format validation
    if not basic_format_check(response):
        return 0.0

    # Level 2: Content relevance
    relevance_score = content_relevance(response, expected_response)
    if relevance_score < 0.3:
        return relevance_score * 0.5  # Cap low relevance scores

    # Level 3: Detailed accuracy
    accuracy_score = detailed_accuracy(response, expected_response)

    # Level 4: Style and presentation
    style_score = evaluate_style(response)

    # Weighted combination based on hierarchy
    final_score = (
        0.1 * 1.0 +  # Format passed
        0.3 * relevance_score +
        0.5 * accuracy_score +
        0.1 * style_score
    )

    return final_score

def basic_format_check(response: str) -> bool:
    """Basic format validation."""
    return len(response.strip()) > 0 and len(response) < 10000

def content_relevance(response: str, expected: str) -> float:
    """Evaluate content relevance."""
    # Placeholder for semantic similarity
    common_words = set(response.lower().split()) & set(expected.lower().split())
    return len(common_words) / max(len(set(expected.lower().split())), 1)

def detailed_accuracy(response: str, expected: str) -> float:
    """Detailed accuracy evaluation."""
    return accuracy(response, expected)

def evaluate_style(response: str) -> float:
    """Evaluate writing style and presentation."""
    score = 0.0
    if response[0].isupper():  # Starts with capital
        score += 0.3
    if response.endswith('.'):  # Ends with period
        score += 0.3
    if 10 <= len(response.split()) <= 100:  # Appropriate length
        score += 0.4
    return score

​
Best Practices for Advanced Rewards

  1. Modularity: Break complex evaluation into smaller, testable functions
  2. Robustness: Handle edge cases and invalid inputs gracefully
  3. Transparency: Make evaluation criteria clear and interpretable
  4. Validation: Test reward functions on diverse examples
  5. Performance: Consider computational efficiency for large-scale evaluation

​
Next Steps