Alternating Reinforcement Learning with Contextual Rubric Rewards: Beyond the Scalarization Strategy

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.

Rubric-based reinforcement learning (Rubric-RL) trains language models where no verifier exists. A judge checks each criterion of a rubric, and the verdicts are aggregated into a reward, most often by a weighted sum. We show that this additive aggregation is the weak point. Under a sum, criteria compensate for one another: a policy that misses the one decision that matters can buy the points back with advice nobody asked for. On clinical consultation, such a policy scores higher and answers worse. Rubric coverage rises while appropriateness on held-out physician criteria falls below the untrained model. The medical criteria are not to blame. Grouped so that they must hold together, the same criteria, unchanged to the word, recover a third of the loss; shorter answers recover almost none. We therefore propose Protocol-level Rubrics (ProRubric), which keeps what the criteria ask for and changes how they are aggregated. It groups a checklist into a few protocol-level dimensions. A dimension counts only when all of its criteria hold and its failure clause does not fire. The grouping is done once, offline, and leaves the optimizer unchanged. ProRubric raises appropriateness by 10.8 points without losing coverage and has the best seven-benchmark average at both scales. Reward validity is set not only by what a rubric verifies, but by how it aggregates. Code is available at https://github.com/Estrellajer/ProRubric