When Rubrics Fail: Error Enumeration as Reward in Reference-Free RL Post-Training for Virtual Try-On

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is expanding from tasks with well-defined correctness signals, such as mathematics and code, toward multifaceted quality requirements specified by multi-dimensional rubrics. Since policy optimization consumes one scalar per rollout, rubric-based pipelines must map multiple criterion scores into a scalar reward. This aggregation is often treated as score scaling, but it implicitly determines how quality dimensions trade off during training. The prevailing practice, normalizing each criterion and taking a linear combination, assumes that cardinal score differences are comparable across criteria and that gains on one criterion compensate for failures on another; both assumptions are unreliable when criteria are semantically heterogeneous. We propose Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rubric-based Ranking (RLVR$^2$), a verifiable ranking paradigm for rubric-based RLVR. For each criterion, RLVR$^2$ converts rubric scores into criterion-specific within-group ordinal outcomes, recovers a latent utility from the resulting comparison matrix, and merges these utilities into one training signal. By retaining only within-group ordering and discarding raw score magnitudes, RLVR$^2$ avoids calibrating heterogeneous rubric scales. It further supports objective-preserving attribute adjustment: auxiliary attributes that correlate with observed rankings but are not training objectives can enter the estimation without expanding the rubric or rewarding them directly. Across three model scales and 16 benchmarks, RLVR$^2$ consistently outperforms representative rubric-based baselines, achieving the best overall performance on most benchmarks at every scale. Analysis shows it controls systematic effects tied to reasoning efficiency and response formatting while preserving the quality objective.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has made post-training highly effective when correctness can be checked automatically. However, many important model behaviors require satisfying several qualitative criteria at once. Rubric-based rewards address this setting by grading prompt-specific criteria and aggregating them into a scalar reward. Yet standard static aggregations conflate a criterion's human-assigned importance with its current usefulness as an optimization signal. We show that this assumption breaks down in rubric RL: many important criteria are already saturated or currently unreachable, while criteria that distinguish rollouts are not necessarily those with the largest human weights. We introduce POW3R, a policy-aware rubric reward framework that preserves human weights and category balance as the rubric objective while adapting criterion-level reward weights during training. POW3R uses rollout-level contrast to emphasize criteria that currently separate the policy's outputs, making the GRPO reward more informative without changing the underlying evaluation target. Across three base policies on two datasets spanning multimodal and text-only settings, POW3R wins $24$ of $30$ base-policy/metric comparisons, improving both mean rubric reward and strict completion (the fraction of prompts whose response satisfies every required rubric criterion) over vanilla GRPO with rubric rewards, and reaches the same plateau in $2.5$--$4\times$ fewer training steps. Rubric rewards should therefore distinguish what should matter in the final answer from what can teach the current policy.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has enabled strong post-training gains in domains such as math and coding, though many open-ended settings rely on rubric-based rewards. We study reward hacking in rubric-based RL, where a policy is optimized against a training verifier but evaluated against a cross-family panel of three frontier judges, reducing dependence on any single evaluator. Our framework separates two sources of divergence: verifier failure, where the training verifier credits rubric criteria that reference verifiers reject, and rubric-design limitations, where even strong rubric-based verifiers favor responses that rubric-free judges rate worse overall. Across medical and science domains, weak verifiers produce large proxy-reward gains that do not transfer to the reference verifiers; exploitation grows over training and concentrates in recurring failures such as partial satisfaction of compound criteria, treating implicit content as explicit, and imprecise topical matching. Stronger verifiers substantially reduce, but do not eliminate, verifier exploitation. We also introduce a self-internalization gap, a verifier-free diagnostic based on policy log-probabilities, which tracks reference-verifier quality, detecting when the policy trained using the weak verifier stops improving. Finally, in our setting, stronger verification does not prevent reward hacking when the rubric leaves important failure modes unspecified: rubric-based verifiers prefer the RL checkpoint, while rubric-free judges prefer the base model. These disagreements coincide with gains concentrated in completeness and presence-based criteria, alongside declines in factual correctness, conciseness, relevance, and overall quality. Together, these results suggest that stronger verification reduces reward hacking, but does not by itself ensure that rubric gains correspond to broader quality gains.