Designing effective reward functions remains a major bottleneck in Reinforcement Learning (RL). Recent work uses large foundation Vision-Language Models (VLMs) as reward models, computing text-observation similarity to bypass manual reward engineering. Although promising, these rewards are often noisy and unreliable, limiting their direct utility during deployment. We present Structure-Aware Fine-Tuning (SAFT), a simple, self-supervised method that refines these imperfect reward signals online without access to ground-truth supervision. SAFT leverages intrinsic structural priors to regularize the VLM's latent space via LoRA adapters. We rigorously evaluate SAFT across a spectrum of base model capabilities to demonstrate its versatility. Our results show that SAFT consistently denoises the reward landscape, yielding faster policy convergence and substantially improved alignment (EPIC distance) relative to the underlying base model, suggesting that failures can often be attributed to structural brittleness rather than semantic misunderstanding. By replacing extensive human preference annotation with structural inductive biases inherent to the task, SAFT offers a scalable path for stabilizing text-conditioned RL and underscores the broader value of incorporating task structure as a general inductive bias.
Despite their widespread use, the role of reward models in shaping reinforcement learning is poorly understood. Reward models offer a tempting promise: they automatically estimate response quality in the absence of verifiers or human judges. Unlike "verifiable rewards" which typically produce binary scores, reward models typically produce continuous scores, allowing them to be sensitive to fine-grained differences in responses. However, we show this apparent strength is a serious weakness: many popular reward models are oversensitive, assigning different scores to equally good responses. Theoretically, we show that seemingly perfect reward models can be highly oversensitive; empirically, this oversensitivity can lead to bad policies. In place of existing notions of "reward model accuracy," we propose evaluating reward models using distinct measures of "discriminative ability" and "specificity" (the complement of oversensitivity). As a solution, we describe a training-free algorithm that uses Monte Carlo dropout on any neural reward model to produce discrete reward clusters. Theoretically, we prove there exist discretizations that reduce oversensitivity at minimal expense of discriminative ability; empirically we show, in both controlled and natural RL settings, that discretizing rewards leads to less reward hacking and better policies than training on the original rewards.