Reinforcement learning for open-ended text generation is constrained by the lack of verifiable rewards, necessitating reliance on judge models that require either annotated data or powerful closed-source models. Inspired by recent work on unsupervised reinforcement learning for mathematical reasoning using confidence-based endogenous rewards, we investigate whether this principle can be adapted to open-ended writing tasks. We find that directly applying confidence rewards leads to Triviality Bias: the policy collapses toward high-probability outputs, reducing diversity and meaningful content. We propose TCER (Triviality Corrected Endogenous Reward), which addresses this bias by rewarding the relative information gain between a specialist policy and a generalist reference policy, modulated by a probability-dependent correction mechanism. Across multiple writing benchmarks and model architectures, TCER achieves consistent improvements without external supervision. Furthermore, TCER also transfers effectively to mathematical reasoning, validating the generality of our approach across different generation tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: TCER computes rewards using both base and actor models, emphasizing high-entropy meaningful content over EndoR. After RL Training, TCER shows gentler entropy decay with enhanced exploration.
Figure 2: Overview of TCER training pipeline and reward comparison. (a) Training workflow: SFT on high-quality data to obtain πs , followed by Reference Augmented GRPO with TCER that incorporate information gain ϕ and gating weight w . (b) Sentence-level reward visualization on a rollout: token-level rewards are averaged within each sentence comparing TCER and EndoR. (Rewards are average log-probs; higher is closer to 0 .)
Model
LB
HB-A
HB-B
WB-A
WB-B
WB-C
WB-D
WB-E
WB-F
General Closed-source Models
GPT-4o
83.1
83.7
87.6
74.4
73.4
74.3
77.9
75.8
78.0
Claude 3.5
89.3
82.9
88.3
59.5
57.6
56.3
59.3
62.0
67.7
Claude 3.7
97.8
83.9
93.2
78.2
77.9
76.5
79.3
79.2
80.8
General Open-source Models
Llama3.1-8B-Instruct
60.3
45.5
41.3
47.5
45.6
43.7
42.3
48.6
50.8
Table 1: Performance comparison on writing benchmarks. We evaluate models across LongBench-Write, HelloBench subsets, and WritingBench domains. Starting from Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct, each training stage (SFT, RL-EndoR, RL-TCER) demonstrates progressive improvements.
Model
LB
HB-A
HB-B
WB-A
WB-B
WB-C
WB-D
WB-E
WB-F
DeepWriting Dataset
DeepWriter-8B
85.6
77.8
85.7
72.2
71.8
69.8
70.6
73.7
72.3
+ RL-EndoR
86.1
79.6
86.9
76.0
73.6
73.9
69.6
77.3
74.5
+ RL-TCER
87.3
82.2
86.2
76.5
75.3
74.8
74.2
76.7
75.2
LongWriter Dataset
LongWriter-8B
76.5
68.8
82.9
57.9
53.9
49.0
52.0
52.9
52.0
Table 2: Effectiveness of TCER for existing finetuned models. Applying our RL methods to finetuned models DeepWriter-8B and LongWriter-8B.
Method
AIME 24
AIME 25
AMC
MATH-500
Minerva
Olympiad
Avg
Qwen2.5-7B-Math
11.2
4.4
30.8
46.0
7.7
14.4
19.1
+ SFT
22.2
22.3
52.8
82.6
40.8
43.7
44.1
+ SFT + RL-EndoR
30.5
25.4
60.9
87.0
42.6
46.8
48.9
+ SFT + RL-TCER
32.4
26.1
62.1
86.4
44.5
49.6
50.2
Llama3.1-8B-Instruct
4.6
0.2
21.2
46.4
20.9
12.4
17.6
+ SFT
9.4
9.5
39.0
68.4
27.2
32.4
30.9
Table 3: Performance comparison on mathematical reasoning benchmarks. TCER outperforms both the SFT baseline and EndoR across different base models.
Figure 3: Performance generalization across different models and datasets. For each model group, the bars represent the performance of the base model (grey), after SFT (light blue), after applying RL-EndoR (dark blue), and after applying our RL-TCER (orange).
Metric
EndoR
TCER
High-quality avg.
-1.11
-0.80
Regular avg.
-1.08
-0.93
High-quality Recall %
20.7%
35.8%
Table 4: Sentence-level analysis of reward signals. Sentences identified as brilliant by Gemini-2.5-Pro, GPT-4o, Claude-Opus4 are evaluated. Analysis conducted on 10,000 outputs with ≥ 5 high-quality sentences per text.
Config
LB
HB-A
HB-B
WB-A
WB-B
WB-C
WB-D
WB-E
WB-F
FULL TCER
86.3
81.1
86.4
72.7
73.1
70.8
67.8
73.4
71.1
w/o w(yi∣si)⋅ϕ(yi∣si)
84.5
79.0
84.7
72.6
70.9
70.1
64.6
73.0
68.7
w/o logπs(yi∣si)
76.2
70.8
72.0
68.5
68.2
65.6
60.1
69.4
64.1
w/o w(yi∣si)
81.5
76.5
79.1
70.6
70.5
71.2
62.7
73.1
65.3
w/o Ref-Augmentation
85.7
78.2
85.6
72.9
72.3
70.6
66.6
73.3
71.2
Table 5: Ablation studies on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct with the DeepWriting dataset. Each component contributes to the overall performance.
Figure 4: Displays these trajectories as line plots, with EndoR scores shown in blue and TCER scores in orange. High-quality sentences identified by our judge panel are marked with bold red points.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 5: RL training dynamics on writing tasks. For each dataset, we report the EndoR reward trajectory, the TCER reward trajectory , and a direct entropy comparison between EndoR and TCER .
Figure 6: RL training dynamics on mathematical reasoning tasks. We report EndoR and TCER reward trajectories together with entropy comparisons for each model configuration.
Configuration
LB
HB-A
HB-B
WB-A
WB-B
WB-C
WB-D
WB-E
WB-F
(k=1,λ=1)
83.7
78.5
83.9
70.8
71.2
68.6
65.3
71.5
69.0
(k=2,λ=2)
85.1
79.8
85.2
71.9
72.4
69.7
66.5
72.6
70.2
(k=3,λ=2)
86.3
81.1
86.4
72.7
73.1
70.8
67.8
73.4
71.1
(k=4,λ=2)
85.9
80.7
86.0
72.4
72.8
70.4
67.3
73.0
70.7
(k=3,λ=1)
85.4
80.2
85.6
72.1
72.5
70.1
67.0
72.8
70.4
(k=3,λ=3)
85.8
80.6
85.9
72.3
72.7
70.3
67.2
72.9
70.6
Appendix
Table 6: Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis on the DeepWriter dataset with Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct. Results show win rates or benchmark scores across LongBench (LB), HelloBench subsets (HB-A: Open QA, HB-B: Text Generation), and WritingBench domains (WB-A through WB-F representing different professional writing categories). The optimal configuration (k=3,λ=2) achieves consistent improvements across all metrics.
Figure 7: Reward case study (Prompt).
Figure 8: Reward case study (Model output from SFT).
Figure 9: Reward case study. The table reports EndoR and TCER scores for each line, Δ=TCER−EndoR , and whether the line is selected by the closed-source judge panel.
Figure 10: English reward case study: prompt and model output.
Figure 11: English reward case study: sentence-level EndoR vs. TCER rewards. The table reports Δ=TCER−EndoR and whether each line is selected by the judge panel.
Figure 12: Writing case (SFT). Response generated by the SFT-only model.
Figure 13: Writing case (EndoR). Response generated by the EndoR-trained model under the same prompt.
Figure 14: Writing case (TCER). Response generated by the TCER-trained model under the same prompt.
Figure 15: English writing case (SFT). Response generated by the SFT-only model.
Figure 16: English writing case (EndoR). Response generated by the EndoR-trained model under the same prompt.
Figure 17: English writing case (TCER). Response generated by the TCER-trained model under the same prompt.
Figure 18: Sentence-selection prompt used by individual judge models (GPT-4o, Claude Opus 4, and Gemini 2.5 Pro). Each judge independently selects at least five highlighted sentences from the same output.
Figure 19: Aggregation prompt used by Gemini 2.5 Pro to consolidate highlighted sentences across judges via agreement-based selection.
Reinforcement Learning (RL) has enabled LLMs to excel in objective reasoning tasks such as mathematics and code generation. However, applying RL to open-ended tasks, such as creative writing, remains challenging because LLM-as-a-judge reward models often exhibit stylistic biases and positional inconsistencies, leading to unstable supervision. To address this, we propose OPERA (Objective Perplexity-based Reflective Alignment), which replaces unreliable external judges with intrinsic rewards derived from perplexity dynamics. Specifically, we derive an intrinsic reward signal from perplexity dynamics, quantifying uncertainty reduction at critical reflective states. During the cold-start phase, we introduce a data synthesis method that leverages carefully designed guiding words to generate diverse reasoning traces, along with perplexity-prioritized rollouts that utilize internal log-probabilities to identify logically consistent reasoning branches. This pipeline yields a large-scale dataset comprising 20,000 high-quality reasoning trajectories. Empirical evaluations consistently demonstrate the scalability and efficacy of our approach in alignment for open-ended tasks. Implementing OPERA on Qwen3-8B establishes a new state-of-the-art among open-source models, achieving parity with or surpassing proprietary models like Gemini2.5 and MiniMax-M2.5 in some open-ended tasks. The code is available at https://github.com/pangpang-xuan/OPERA.
Wenxuan Jiang, Zining Fan, Zijian Zhang +6
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Peking University · Meituan Longcat Team +2
Verifiable rewards have advanced reinforcement learning in mathematics and code. However, many valuable open-ended tasks share three properties: no automatic verifier of overall quality, multiple requirements to satisfy jointly, and multiple valid responses to each query. Training therefore needs feedback on requirement satisfaction across different valid responses. Rubric-based reinforcement learning provides this feedback by aggregating scores from explicit criteria. As learning progresses unevenly, some criteria become fully satisfied and lose discrimination while others remain informative. Dynamic methods revise shared rubrics or select evolving criteria to restore discrimination, but may also change useful criteria. To address this, we propose Reinforcement Learning with Adaptive Rubric Evolution (RARE). The core idea is to use current policy feedback to guide both which criteria change and what their replacements assess. Sample-level updates replace criteria fully satisfied across current outputs with checks of remaining quality differences, retaining all other criteria and scores. Within this rule, we compare rewarding desirable qualities with penalizing observed flaws. Video script generation exemplifies these properties and supports content production. Its demands for coherent, executable narratives under constraints make it a challenging testbed. Targeting flaws performs best across three video types with a mean gain of 3.82 points over matched static rubrics. Model and human preferences support these gains. Improvements also extend to writing and general generation benchmarks.
Xueyun Tian, Bingbing Xu, Chuyue Li +9
State Key Laboratory of AI Safety, Institute of Computing Technology, CAS · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Qwen Business Unit of Alibaba +1
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