RuCL: Stratified Rubric-Based Curriculum Learning for Multimodal Large Language Model Reasoning
Authors: Yukun Chen, Jiaming Li, Longze Chen, Ze Gong, Jingpeng Li, Zhen Qin, Hengyu Chang, Ancheng Xu, +5 more
Organizations: Shenzhen Institute of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Alibaba Group · School of Biomedical Engineering, UNSW Sydney
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a prevailing paradigm for enhancing reasoning in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). However, relying solely on outcome supervision risks reward hacking, where models learn spurious reasoning patterns to satisfy final answer checks. While recent rubric-based approaches offer fine-grained supervision signals, they suffer from high computational costs of instance-level generation and inefficient training dynamics caused by treating all rubrics as equally learnable. In this paper, we propose Stratified Rubric-based Curriculum Learning (RuCL), a novel framework that reformulates curriculum learning by shifting the focus from data selection to reward design. RuCL generates generalized rubrics for broad applicability and stratifies them based on the model's competence. By dynamically adjusting rubric weights during training, RuCL guides the model from mastering foundational perception to tackling advanced logical reasoning. Extensive experiments on various visual reasoning benchmarks show that RuCL yields a remarkable +7.83% average improvement over the Qwen2.5-VL-7B model, achieving a state-of-the-art accuracy of 60.06%.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of reward paradigms. We move beyond (A) outcome-only signals and (B) unstructured dense feedback. (C) Our RuCL framework organizes rubrics into a stratified curriculum, aligning reward complexity with the model’s progressive learning stages.
Figure 2: Overview of Stratified Rubric-based Curriculum Learning (RuCL). The framework proceeds in two stages: (Top) Generalized Rubric Construction and Stratification , where evaluation rubrics are generated and categorized into Foundational ( Reasy ) and Advanced ( Rhard ) tiers based on empirical difficulty. (Bottom) Dynamic Curriculum Learning , where the rubric-based reward is synthesized via a dynamic weighting mechanism controlled by a scheduler. By adjusting the weight λ based on real-time performance, RuCL progressively shifts the optimization focus from mastering basic skills to tackling complex reasoning.
Rubric Criterion
Evaluation Focus
Difficulty Stratum
Evaluator
Visual Presence
Penalizes object and attribute hallucinations.
Foundational ( Reasy )
LLM Judge
Entity Extraction
Isolates the specific Region of Interest (ROI).
Intent Alignment
Checks compliance with scope and constraints.
Conclusion Match
Ensures the answer logically follows the reasoning.
Step Coherence
Detects logical gaps and internal contradictions.
Advanced ( Rhard )
Evidence Grounding
Validates inferences using specific visual cues.
Table 1: The stratified reward system. The evaluation rubrics are categorized by difficulty and implemented via either a generative LLM Judge or a deterministic Answer Verifier. Detailed rubric definitions and scoring criteria are provided in Appendix D .
Model
Mathematical Reasoning
General
Avg.
MathVerse
MathVision
MathVista
WeMATH
MMMU
LogicVista
Counting
Proprietary Models
GPT-4o
50.20
30.30
63.80
68.80
69.10
45.90
-
-
Claude-3.5-Sonnet
57.64
46.48
67.70
73.05
68.30
43.97
-
-
Open-Source General-Purpose Models
Qwen2.5-VL-7B
48.98
24.18
70.20
58.52
51.00
39.26
73.50
52.23
Table 2: Performance comparison on Mathematical Reasoning and General benchmarks. The “Avg.” column reports the average score across all seven evaluated benchmarks. The best results among open-source reasoning models are highlighted in bold , while the second-best are underlined .
Figure 3: Left: Training dynamics of Foundational (blue) and Advanced (red) rubric rewards. Middle: Ablation study results on rubric aggregation and scheduling strategies. Right: Sensitivity analysis of the reward balancing hyperparameter.
Method
MMMU
LogicVista
Counting
Avg.
Vanilla GRPO
54.89
46.53
76.00
59.14
Uniform Averaging
55.44
50.11
77.00
59.29
Linear Stratification
55.44
47.43
79.50
60.79
RuCL
56.67
49.66
85.50
63.94
Table 3: Ablation results on General benchmarks.
Window Size w
Mathematical
General
Avg.
w=10
55.57
60.8
57.81
w=20
57.15
63.94
60.06
w=30
56.64
63.74
59.67
Table 4: Sensitivity analysis of sliding window size w in curriculum triggering.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyperparameter
Value
Optimization & Rollout
Training Batch Size
256
Global Batch Size
128
Rollout Number ( G )
8
Sampling Temperature
1.0
Learning Rate
1e-6
Appendix
Table 5: Detailed hyperparameters for DR-CL training.
ID
Applicability (%)
Accuracy (%)
ID
Applicability (%)
Accuracy (%)
Cand_01 (R01)
99.1
98.3
Cand_11 (R04)
100.0
69.4
Cand_02 (R02)
99.4
99.4
Cand_12
78.4
94.8
Cand_03
18.8
98.1
Cand_13 (R05)
99.2
68.6
Cand_04
78.1
99.3
Cand_14
34.0
90.4
Cand_05
71.0
96.7
Cand_15
27.3
98.2
Cand_06
22.9
87.3
Cand_16
33.5
85.8
Appendix
Table 6: Statistics for the 20 rubric candidates. The model selects Candidates 01, 02, 07, 11, 13, and 17 to form the core reward metrics R01–R06. Candidate 20 serves as the equivalent of the ground truth accuracy for the final assessment.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has substantially enhanced the reasoning capabilities of multimodal large language models (MLLMs). However, existing RLVR approaches typically rely on outcome-driven optimization that updates both perception and reasoning using a shared reward based solely on the final answer. This shared reward blurs credit assignment, frequently improving reasoning patterns while failing to reliably enhance the accuracy of upstream visual evidence extraction. To address this perception bottleneck, we introduce PRCO (Perception-Reasoning Coevolution), a dual-role RLVR framework with a shared policy. PRCO consists of two cooperative roles: an Observer that generates an evidence caption tailored to the question and a Solver that predicts the final answer based on this caption. Crucially, PRCO employs role-specific reward signals: the Solver is optimized using verifiable outcome rewards on the final answer, while the Observer receives a utility reward derived from the Solver's downstream success. Extensive experiments across eight challenging multimodal reasoning benchmarks demonstrate that PRCO yields consistent improvements across model scales by over 7 points on average accuracy compared to the base model, outperforming prior open-source RL-tuned baselines.
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is widely used to improve reasoning in large language models, but rewards only final-answer correctness with no supervision over intermediate steps. Rubric-based methods such as Rubrics as Rewards (RaR) introduce finer-grained supervision by scoring rollouts against structured criteria, yet the rubric scores are still aggregated into a single scalar applied to the entire response, causing three weaknesses: loss of multi-criterion structure, uniform supervision of correct and incorrect steps, and reward hacking through unbounded self-correction. On 1,000 problems, we find 18.2% of steps in correct-answer responses are wrong yet positively rewarded, while 49.9% of steps in incorrect-answer responses are correct yet penalized. We introduce Step-wise Rubrics as Rewards (SRaR), an RLVR framework that (i) uses an LLM judge to attribute each rubric item to a specific reasoning step, (ii) normalizes per-step rubric scores across rollouts so only steps whose quality varies produce a learning signal, and (iii) combines the per-step reward with the outcome reward through a decoupled advantage estimator that keeps the outcome baseline stable. We further build a 16K-problem rubric dataset by contrastively distilling rubric items from correct and flawed reasoning paths sampled from a strong model. Across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks, SRaR improves average accuracy over RaR by 3.57 points on Qwen3-8B and 2.75 points on Qwen3-32B, raises the Faithful Reasoning Rate on AIME 2025 from 34.5% to 46.7%, and reduces self-correction looping from 48.1% to 26.5%.
Weichu Xie, Haozhe Zhao, Wenpu Liu +15
Peking University · JD Explore Academy · Shanghai Jiao Tong University +2
Multimodal large language models exhibit capabilities on reasoning tasks, yet often produce flawed intermediate steps while yielding correct final answers. This behavior undermines interpretability and reliability, suggesting reliance on spurious shortcuts rather than faithful reasoning. Although efforts have explored step-level supervision, distinguishing decisive steps from redundant ones remains challenging. We propose O2-CritiCuRL, a novel curriculum reinforcement learning framework that introduces critical-step awareness through an iterative offline-online paradigm. In the offline stage, O2-CritiCuRL conducts multi-rollout analysis over step-annotated trajectories to estimate step-level importance, allowing the framework to distill critical reasoning steps and filter out redundant ones. In the online stage, we employ a progressive step-level reinforcement learning strategy, where truncated chains guide the model to infer missing steps and refine its reasoning, thereby sharpening its focus on critical steps and overcoming the limitations of static supervision. Extensive experiments on multimodal reasoning benchmarks show that our method achieves state-of-the-art performance while delivering superior training and inference efficiency. Code is available at https://github.com/kk0013/CritiCuRL.
Wendi Deng, Hang Du, Guoshun Nan +11
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, 100876, China. · BUPT Shenzhen Institute, ShenZhen, 518038, China. · Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, USA. +4