AdaRubric: Task-Adaptive Rubrics for Reliable LLM Agent Evaluation and Reward Learning
Organizations: The University of Sydney
Abstract
Evaluating LLM agent trajectories is fundamentally task-specific: a code-debugging agent should be judged on Correctness and Error Handling, not on Fluency or Safety. Yet the dominant paradigm -- LLM-as-Judge with a fixed rubric -- applies the same static dimensions regardless of task, producing systematic mis-evaluation. We present AdaRubric, a framework that (i) adaptively generates task-specific evaluation rubrics from task descriptions via LLM, (ii) evaluates agent trajectories step-by-step with confidence-weighted, per-dimension scoring, and (iii) produces dense reward signals for preference learning. Three composable filtering strategies, including the novel DimensionAwareFilter that provably prevents dimension-level quality masking, yield high-quality DPO preference pairs. On WebArena, ToolBench, and AgentBench, AdaRubric achieves Pearson r = 0.79 human correlation (+0.15 over the strongest baseline), with strong reliability (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.83). DPO models trained on AdaRubric-generated pairs improve task success by +6.8-8.5% over the best baseline. AdaRubric also generalises zero-shot to unseen domains (SWE-bench) and extends to multimodal agents (VisualWebArena, OSWorld) without modification. Our code is available at: github.com/alphadl/AdaRubrics
Figures & tables
| Method | WA | TB | AB | Avg | |
| ROUGE-L | 0.31 | 0.26 | 0.29 | 0.29 | |
| BERTScore | 0.43 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.41 | |
| G-Eval | 0.54 | 0.49 | 0.52 | 0.52 | |
| Prometheus | 0.61 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.59 | |
| GPT-4 Direct | 0.64 | 0.60 | 0.62 | 0.62 | — |
| AdaRubric -WM | 0.74 | 0.70 | 0.72 | 0.72 |
| Method | WA | TB | AB |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base (zero-shot) | 12.3 | 18.4 | 15.2 |
| SFT – Success only | 16.7 | 23.1 | 20.1 |
| DPO – Random | 17.4 | 24.8 | 21.3 |
| DPO – G-Eval | 20.1 | 27.6 | 24.5 |
| DPO – Prometheus | 21.0 | 29.3 | 26.4 |
| DPO – AdaRubric -WM | 24.3 | 34.2 | 30.8 |
| Method | WA | TB | Avg |
|---|---|---|---|
| G-Eval (GPT-4o) | 0.64 | 0.61 | 0.63 |
| Prometheus | 0.71 | 0.68 | 0.70 |
| GPT-4 Direct | 0.69 | 0.66 | 0.68 |
| AdaRubric -WM | 0.81 | 0.79 | 0.80 |
| AdaRubric -GM | 0.83 | 0.80 | 0.82 |
| AdaRubric -DA | 0.85 | 0.82 | 0.84 |
| Method | Res.% | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| G-Eval (GPT-4o) | 0.51 | 0.63 | 8.2 |
| Prometheus | 0.56 | 0.70 | 9.1 |
| GPT-4 Direct | 0.59 | 0.68 | 9.8 |
| AdaRubric -WM | 0.72 | 0.82 | 12.4 |
| AdaRubric -DA | 0.77 | 0.84 | 14.7 |
| Variant | SR% | |
|---|---|---|
| Fixed (generic) | 0.51 | 19.1 |
| Fixed (domain template) | 0.65 | 22.4 |
| Adaptive, no conf. wt. | 0.72 | 24.0 |
| Adaptive, no DAFilter | 0.75 | 25.2 |
| AdaRubric -DA (full) | 0.79 | 27.8 |
| Backbone | SR% | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-4 Direct | 0.64 | 0.69 | — |
| Prometheus (13B) | 0.61 | 0.71 | 21.0 |
| AR / GPT-4o | 0.79 | 0.85 | 27.8 |
| AR / Llama-70B | 0.75 | 0.82 | 25.9 |
| AR / Llama-8B | 0.68 | 0.77 | 23.2 |
| Train Source | WA | TB | AB |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prometheus baseline (static rubric) | |||
| WA WA (in-dom.) | 21.0 | — | — |
| WA TB (cross) | — | 21.4 | — |
| TB WA (cross) | 18.3 | — | — |
| TB TB (in-dom.) | — | 29.3 | — |
| AB AB (in-dom.) | — | — | 26.4 |
| Reward | 1K | 3K | 5K |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-4 Scalar | 14.2 | 18.7 | 21.3 |
| Prometheus | 15.8 | 21.2 | 23.6 |
| AdaRubric -WM | 18.3 | 24.9 | 27.1 |
| AdaRubric -DA | 20.1 | 27.4 | 30.2 |
| Rubric Source | Rel. | Orth. | Comp. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Generic (Help./Safety/Flu.) | 2.1 | 3.8 | 1.6 |
| Domain template (manual) | 3.9 | 3.6 | 3.7 |
| Expert-designed | 4.6 | 4.4 | 4.5 |
| AdaRubric -generated | 4.3 | 4.2 | 4.1 |
| Filter | SR% | Retained | |
|---|---|---|---|
| None | 0.71 | 21.7 | 100% |
| AbsoluteThreshold | 0.74 | 24.0 | 72.3% |
| PercentileFilter | 0.73 | 23.4 | 80.0% |
| DimensionAwareFilter | 0.79 | 27.8 | 61.5% |
| CompositeFilter | 0.78 | 26.9 | 47.2% |
| SR% | ||
|---|---|---|
| 0 (uniform) | 0.71 | 23.5 |
| 0.25 | 0.75 | 25.4 |
| 0.5 (default) | 0.79 | 27.8 |
| 1.0 | 0.77 | 26.9 |
| 2.0 | 0.72 | 24.8 |
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| VWA | OSWorld | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | SR% | SR% | ||
| G-Eval | 0.48 | — | 0.44 | — |
| GPT-4V Direct | 0.62 | — | 0.59 | — |
| AdaRubric -DA | 0.76 | 26.3 | 0.73 | 22.8 |
LLM Agent Evaluation
Large language model agent evaluation measures whether tool-using systems complete tasks reliably, safely, and efficiently.
See all 1,194 papers