VA-Judger: Reward Modeling from Human Preference Feedback for Joint Video-Audio Generation
The First Reward Model for Joint Video-Audio Generation.
Abstract
Using reinforcement learning to post train joint video and audio generation models requires a reward signal. Existing methods construct this reward by combining metrics for individual quality dimensions, including audio quality, visual fidelity, and synchronization. However, these metrics evaluate perceptual dimensions separately and fail to capture the holistic coherence across text, video, audio, motion, and semantics that drives human preference. More critically, they are poorly aligned with actual human judgments. Optimizing models against these metrics encourages reward hacking, generating video-audio content that achieves high scores on these metrics yet appears incoherent or unfaithful to human viewers. To address this problem, we first construct a large-scale human-preference dataset VAPref-10K for joint video-audio generation, comprising 9K prompts and 10.3K fine-grained paired comparisons from open-source generation models. We also introduce the VA-Judger-Bench benchmark with both in-domain and out-of-domain model comparisons to evaluate whether reward models truly align with human preferences. We further propose VA-Judger, a chain-of-thought omni-reward model for joint video-audio generation. In particular, VA-Judger first learns from pairs with clear quality gaps to establish structured output and coarse preference discrimination, then distills reliable preference explanations for harder near-quality comparisons via rejection sampling verified against human annotations, and finally performs dimension-wise reinforcement learning that decomposes human feedback into individual quality dimensions for denser reward signals than a single binary preference label. Experiments show that VA-Judger outperforms metric baselines in predicting human preferences on both in-domain and out-of-domain evaluations. Using its human-aligned rewards for post-training audio-video generation model also yields significant improvements in generation quality.
Pipeline

VA-Judger training pipeline. The model learns the comparison rubric from easy pairs, aligns with human feedback on hard pairs, and is refined with Dimension-Wise GRPO.
Performance
VA-Judger Performance on VA-Judger-Bench
| Model | Easy | In-domain | Out-of-domain | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| single-dimension evaluation metrics | ||||
| Video quality: VideoAlign | 62.39 | 52.97 | 48.35 | 54.29 |
| Audio quality: AudioBox | 58.70 | 50.00 | 44.00 | 50.43 |
| Text-video: CLIP Score | 55.56 | 54.66 | 53.58 | 54.50 |
| Text-audio: ImageBind T-A | 58.48 | 52.97 | 51.48 | 54.29 |
| Audio-video: ImageBind | 61.30 | 55.51 | 51.83 | 55.94 |
| Synchronization: SynchFormer | 61.30 | 46.61 | 48.35 | 52.71 |
| Overall: Javis Score | 60.00 | 55.51 | 54.96 | 56.88 |
| Reward models | ||||
| Qwen3-Omni Captioner (No CoT) | 57.00 / 57.00 | 54.00 / 54.00 | 56.20 / 56.20 | 57.22 / 57.22 |
| Qwen3-Omni Captioner (CoT) | 52.50 / 57.65 | 49.60 / 54.87 | 46.60 / 56.97 | 50.43 / 58.61 |
| Qwen3-Omni Instruct NoCoT | 60.75 / 60.75 | 54.00 / 54.00 | 54.60 / 54.60 | 56.61 / 56.61 |
| Qwen3-Omni Instruct CoT | 63.25 / 64.71 | 54.80 / 55.92 | 55.00 / 55.33 | 57.83 / 58.69 |
| + Easy Cold Start | 72.00 / 72.00 | 59.20 / 59.20 | 56.20 / 56.20 | 62.35 / 62.35 |
| + Hard SFT | 74.50 / 74.50 | 63.60 / 63.60 | 60.20 / 60.20 | 65.91 / 65.91 |
| + GRPO (VA-Judger) | 76.25 / 76.25 | 66.00 / 66.00 | 63.40 / 63.40 | 68.43 / 68.43 |
Table 1. Accuracy (%) against human pairwise preferences. Reward models report Total Acc / Parsed Acc.
Video Generation Model Performance on JavisBench
| Video Quality | AudioBox Quality | Cross Modal Alignment | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | VQ ↑ | MQ ↑ | AQ ↑ | AB CE ↑ | AB CU ↑ | AB PC ↑ | AB PQ ↑ | TV Align ↑ | TA Align ↑ | ViCLIP ↑ |
| LTX-2 | 2.248 | 0.697 | 4.767 | 3.957 | 5.904 | 3.041 | 6.166 | 0.303 | 0.105 | 0.232 |
| LTX-2 + OmniNFT | 3.727 | 0.947 | 5.399 | 4.745 | 6.797 | 3.150 | 6.905 | 0.279 | 0.133 | 0.219 |
| LTX-2 + VA-Judger | 3.942 | 1.183 | 5.610 | 5.136 | 6.766 | 3.606 | 6.932 | 0.310 | 0.180 | 0.242 |
| Δ vs. LTX-2 | +1.693 | +0.486 | +0.843 | +1.179 | +0.862 | +0.564 | +0.766 | +0.007 | +0.075 | +0.009 |
| Δ vs. OmniNFT | +0.214 | +0.236 | +0.211 | +0.391 | -0.031 | +0.456 | +0.026 | +0.031 | +0.047 | +0.023 |
| Text Consistency | AV Consistency and Synchrony | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | TV IB ↑ | TA IB ↑ | CLIP ↑ | CLAP ↑ | AV IB ↑ | CAVP ↑ | AV Align ↑ | AVHScore ↑ | DeSync ↓ | JavisScore ↑ |
| LTX-2 | 0.355 | 0.102 | 0.303 | 0.304 | 0.091 | 0.786 | 0.192 | 0.091 | 0.430 | 0.074 |
| LTX-2 + OmniNFT | 0.336 | 0.134 | 0.298 | 0.394 | 0.154 | 0.800 | 0.208 | 0.146 | 0.226 | 0.122 |
| LTX-2 + VA-Judger | 0.376 | 0.179 | 0.326 | 0.425 | 0.265 | 0.799 | 0.228 | 0.261 | 0.592 | 0.230 |
| Δ vs. LTX-2 | +0.021 | +0.077 | +0.023 | +0.121 | +0.175 | +0.013 | +0.035 | +0.169 | +0.162 | +0.157 |
| Δ vs. OmniNFT | +0.040 | +0.046 | +0.028 | +0.031 | +0.111 | -0.001 | +0.020 | +0.114 | +0.366 | +0.108 |
Table 2. Green cells show the best result and underlined values show the second best.
Human preference evaluation

Human preference rates over 200 three-way comparisons. For each prompt, participants select the best video-audio output among LTX-2, LTX-2 post-trained with OmniNFT, and LTX-2 post-trained with VA-Judger.
Generation Demos
Please turn on your audio.
Side by side comparisons of the base LTX-2 model, OmniNFT, and post training with VA-Judger. Play each clip with audio for the complete comparison.