Organizations: School of Information, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China · School of Information, BRAIN, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
Training models for open-ended writing requires diverse prompts and sufficiently precise specifications of response quality. Constructing such specifications at scale entails recovering task requirements, consolidating overlapping criteria, and defining observable differences between performance levels. We introduce Writer-R1, a writing training pipeline built around Inductive Rubric Generation (IRG), which integrates these operations into an automated rubric construction procedure. The pipeline expands an open writing corpus and uses the resulting prompt-specific rubrics throughout supervised training and reinforcement learning (RL). Each rubric is concatenated with the user request and also defines the reward criteria, making the requirements used for assessment available to the writer before generation. A compact model, RubricGen-4B, learns to supply rubrics for new requests. Writer-R1 improves WritingBench scores by 0.182 and 0.158 over the 4B and 8B backbones, respectively, with gains also on HelloBench. Training ablations favor IRG over direct rubric generation, and further analyses support rubric transfer and the robustness of writer improvements across evaluators. These results support using inductively mined rubrics as both generation guidance and reward specifications for open-ended writing.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Writer-R1 workflow. IRG rubrics condition generation and define RL rewards; RubricGen-4B supplies inference-time rubrics. N , K , and G count candidate dimensions, retained dimensions, and sampled responses; Si,k scores response i on dimension k .
Models
Overall
Domains
Requirements
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
R1
C1
R2
C2
R3
C3
Mid-Scale General Models
Mistral-Large-Instruct
0.764
0.77
0.76
0.78
0.73
0.79
0.76
0.77
0.82
0.77
0.87
0.77
0.79
Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct
0.701
0.70
0.69
0.70
0.68
0.73
0.73
0.71
0.78
0.71
0.82
0.70
0.72
Qwen-2.5-72B-Instruct
0.743
0.77
0.74
0.76
0.69
0.78
0.73
0.75
0.79
0.76
0.86
0.74
0.75
Qwen3-32B
0.788
0.78
0.77
0.79
0.79
0.80
0.81
0.80
0.84
0.79
0.86
0.79
0.80
Table 1: Comparison of writing models on WritingBench. D1 to D6: Academic and Engineering, Finance and Business, Politics and Law, Literature and Art, Education, and Advertising and Marketing. R1 to R3: Style, Format, and Length; C1 to C3: corresponding category scores.
Models
Overall
OEQA
Summ
Chat
TC
HTG
Score
Length
Score
Length
Score
Length
Score
Length
Score
Length
Score
Length
Qwen3-4B
0.641
1,626.61
0.547
1,634.09
0.736
659.04
0.646
2,380.94
0.616
1,992.83
0.662
1,466.15
Qwen3-8B
0.682
1,561.45
0.583
1,671.10
0.743
608.35
0.725
2,364.53
0.649
1,910.64
0.709
1,252.61
WritingBench-7B
0.636
1,012.63
0.553
924.07
0.631
561.09
0.619
1,376.21
0.655
1,174.14
0.722
1,027.65
SuperWriter-7B
0.579
9,497.69
0.478
9,423.32
0.517
9,078.57
0.571
9,563.18
0.627
9,111.82
0.700
10,311.54
LongWriter-Zero-32B
0.713
2,711.94
0.769
2,004.73
0.672
935.03
0.690
3,443.42
0.659
4,935.58
0.776
2,240.93
Table 2: Comparison of response quality and mean word counts on HelloBench. OEQA: open-ended question answering; Summ: summarization; Chat: dialogue; TC: text completion; HTG: heuristic text generation.
Training configuration
Overall
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
Qwen3-4B
0.681
0.69
0.69
0.69
0.64
0.70
0.68
SFT
0.725
0.77
0.72
0.72
0.66
0.77
0.73
DRG + SFT
0.719
0.78
0.72
0.71
0.65
0.76
0.72
DRG + SFT + RL
0.766
0.74
0.74
0.79
0.78
0.77
0.79
IRG + SFT
0.816
0.85
0.82
0.81
0.77
0.84
0.81
IRG + SFT + RL
0.863
0.87
0.88
0.86
0.84
0.88
0.86
Table 3: WritingBench training ablations with Qwen3-4B; IRG + SFT + RL is Writer-R1-4B. Bold marks column maxima. D1 to D6: Academic and Engineering, Finance and Business, Politics and Law, Literature and Art, Education, and Advertising and Marketing.
Figure 2: Rubric transfer on WritingBench across writers (rows) and rubric sources (columns), with writer parameters fixed. DS-R1: DeepSeek-R1-0528; DS-V3: DeepSeek-V3; DS-V3.1: DeepSeek-V3.1; DS-V3.2: DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp; LongCat: LongCat-Flash-Chat; RGen-4B: RubricGen-4B. N/A: direct answering without feedback; Human: human-curated rubrics.
Figure 3: WritingBench evaluation by LLMs and humans (rows), comparing writers (columns) within rows. Human scores average four expert assessments. DS-V3.2: DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp; Qwen3-235B: Qwen3-235B-A22B; WritingBench: WritingBench-7B; SuperWriter: SuperWriter-7B; LongWriter: LongWriter-Zero-32B.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Stage
Setting
Value
SFT
Allocated instances
15K
Teacher candidates per prompt
5
Learning rate
1×10−5
Epochs
1
Learning-rate schedule
Cosine
Warm-up fraction
0.10
Appendix
Table 4: Shared training hyperparameters for Writer-R1-4B and Writer-R1-8B. The prompt and rubric form the writer input in both stages.
Figure 4: Illustration of interdependent writing decisions and their implications for draft assessment. (a) Feedback can inform related decisions about topic interpretation, argument, organization, style, logic, and theme. (b) Defects in early decisions can affect later parts of a response. Explicit criteria provide assessment targets for revision.
Figure 5: Rubric-guided revision with fixed writer parameters. Red: direct answering; blue: holistic LLM feedback; yellow: RubricGen-4B feedback. Radar plots report WritingBench scores; bars count samples requiring zero to four revisions. DeepSeek-R1: DeepSeek-R1-0528. D1 to D6: Academic and Engineering, Finance and Business, Politics and Law, Literature and Art, Education, and Advertising and Marketing. R1 to R3: Style, Format, and Length; C1 to C3: corresponding category scores. Overall: aggregate score.
Target writer
Rubric source
Overall
Domains
Requirements
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
R1
C1
R2
C2
R3
C3
DeepSeek-V3
Human-curated
0.803
0.815
0.799
0.790
0.806
0.800
0.814
0.809
0.851
0.804
0.868
0.794
0.762
DeepSeek-R1
0.788
0.791
0.780
0.781
0.793
0.773
0.816
0.800
0.832
0.793
0.850
0.791
0.743
DeepSeek-R1-0528
0.806
0.814
0.799
0.791
0.808
0.802
0.831
0.817
0.858
0.810
0.866
0.801
0.767
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
0.806
0.809
0.790
0.802
0.817
0.797
0.831
0.817
0.851
0.811
0.868
0.806
0.761
LongCat-Flash-Chat
0.809
0.809
0.794
0.806
0.815
0.809
0.830
0.817
0.854
0.813
0.875
0.804
0.760
Appendix
Table 5: Writing performance under different rubric sources on WritingBench, with the target writer and evaluation setting fixed within each block. D1 to D6: Academic and Engineering, Finance and Business, Politics and Law, Literature and Art, Education, and Advertising and Marketing. R1 to R3: Style, Format, and Length; C1 to C3: corresponding category scores.
Evaluator
Writing model
Overall
Domains
Requirements
D1
D2
D3
D4
D5
D6
R1
C1
R2
C2
R3
C3
DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp
Qwen3-4B
0.523
0.541
0.517
0.538
0.461
0.561
0.544
0.535
0.589
0.532
0.615
0.498
0.493
Qwen3-8B
0.573
0.583
0.568
0.570
0.535
0.605
0.598
0.583
0.634
0.579
0.664
0.555
0.558
WritingBench-7B
0.614
0.641
0.585
0.614
0.573
0.648
0.655
0.630
0.675
0.611
0.669
0.599
0.579
SuperWriter-7B
0.624
0.628
0.611
0.626
0.594
0.665
0.644
0.637
0.674
0.622
0.675
0.608
0.559
LongWriter-Zero-32B
0.703
0.710
0.693
0.696
0.682
0.740
0.720
0.704
0.739
0.702
0.744
0.697
0.700
Appendix
Table 6: Domain and requirement performance on WritingBench under different LLM evaluators. D1 to D6: Academic and Engineering, Finance and Business, Politics and Law, Literature and Art, Education, and Advertising and Marketing. R1 to R3: Style, Format, and Length; C1 to C3: corresponding category scores.
Figure 6: Sensitivity of writing performance to revision budget (a) and acceptance threshold (b) on WritingBench for LongCat-Flash-Chat and Kimi-K2. Max Rounds is Rmax , including the initial draft; zero indicates direct answering. Passing Score is the normalized threshold η .
Figure 7: Sensitivity of Writer-R1-4B performance on WritingBench to sampling temperature (a) and top- p (b).
Large language models have achieved remarkable progress in text generation but still struggle with generative writing tasks. In terms of evaluation, existing benchmarks evaluate writing reward models coarsely and fail to measure performance from the perspective of specific requirements. In terms of training, existing training methods either use LLM-as-a-judge approaches or train coarse-grained reward models, lacking fine-grained requirement-adherence reward modeling. To address these issues, we propose a fine-grained evaluation pipeline WEval for writing reward models and a fine-grained reinforcement learning training framework WRL. The evaluation data of WEval covers multiple task categories and requirement types, enabling systematic evaluation of writing reward models by measuring the correlation between the rankings of the reward model and gold rankings. WRL constructs positive and negative samples by selectively dropping instruction requirements, allowing for more precise reward model training. Experiments show that our models achieve substantial improvements across various writing benchmarks and exhibit strong generalization. The code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/Rainier-rq1/From_Coarse_to_Fine.
Qingyu Ren, Tianjun Pan, Xingzhou Chen +1
Shanghai Key Laboratory of Data Science, College of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, Fudan University · 2Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
A fundamental challenge in creative writing lies in reconciling the inherent tension between maintaining global coherence in long-form narratives and preserving local expressiveness in short-form texts. While long-context generation necessitates explicit macroscopic planning, short-form creativity often demands spontaneous, constraint-free expression. Existing alignment paradigms, however, typically employ static reward signals and rely heavily on high-quality supervised data, which is costly and difficult to scale. To address this, we propose UniCreative, a unified reference-free reinforcement learning framework. We first introduce AC-GenRM, an adaptive constraint-aware reward model that dynamically synthesizes query-specific criteria to provide fine-grained preference judgments. Leveraging these signals, we propose ACPO, a policy optimization algorithm that aligns models with human preferences across both content quality and structural paradigms without supervised fine-tuning and ground-truth references. Empirical results demonstrate that AC-GenRM aligns closely with expert evaluations, while ACPO significantly enhances performance across diverse writing tasks. Crucially, our analysis reveals an emergent meta-cognitive ability: the model learns to autonomously differentiate between tasks requiring rigorous planning and those favoring direct generation, validating the effectiveness of our direct alignment approach.
Xiaolong Wei, Zerun Zhu, Simin Niu +9
Beihang University · Baidu Inc. · Renmin University of China
Reliable reward and preference signals are critical for evaluating and optimizing large language models on open-ended tasks. Rubric-based judges offer a transparent way to decompose such judgments into explicit evaluation criteria, but existing annotation-free rubric generators typically rely on a single generic evaluator. As a result, they may overlook important dimensions of human preference, a failure mode we term dimensional blind spots. To address this limitation, we propose Multi-Role Rubric Generation (MRRG), a training-free and reference-free framework that elicits evaluation criteria from multiple complementary roles and consolidates them into an auditable rubric-based scorer. This scorer can be used both to validate pairwise preferences and to provide rewards for GRPO-style Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR). Experiments on preference validation benchmarks show that MRRG consistently outperforms single-role rubric generation baselines across multiple backbone models. Further RLVR experiments demonstrate that MRRG yields a stronger reward signal for improving open-ended generation.
Dazhi Fu, Jiuding Yang, Yiwen Guo +1
School of Data Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China · LIGHTSPEED · Independent Researcher