Most reward models for visual generation reduce rich human judgments to a single unexplained score, discarding the reasoning that underlies preference. We show that teaching reward models to produce explicit, multi-dimensional critiques before scoring transforms them from passive evaluators into active optimization tools, improving generators in two complementary ways: at training time, structured rationales provide interpretable, fine-grained rewards for reinforcement learning; at test time, a Generate-Critique-Refine loop turns critiques into targeted prompt revisions that improve outputs without any parameter updates. To train such a reward model without costly rationale annotations, we introduce Preference-Anchored Rationalization (PARROT), a principled framework that recovers high-quality rationales from readily available preference data through anchored generation, consistency filtering, and distillation. The resulting model, RationalRewards (8B), achieves state-of-the-art preference prediction among open-source reward models, competitive with Gemini-2.5-Pro, while using 10-20x less training data than comparable baselines. As an RL reward, it consistently improves text-to-image and image-editing generators beyond scalar alternatives. Most strikingly, its test-time critique-and-refine loop matches or exceeds RL-based fine-tuning on several benchmarks, suggesting that structured reasoning can unlock latent capabilities in existing generators that suboptimal prompts fail to elicit.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Train-Time RL and Test-Time PromptTuning (PT) with RationalRewards on text and image-to-image generation benchmarks. (Left) Comparison on image editing benchmarks. RL with RationalRewards outperforms prior open-source generators. Crucially, we find that test-time PT with RationalRewards alone can surpass expensive RL. (Right) Breakdown results on text-to-image benchmark UniGenBench++.
Figure 2: RationalRewards is a reasoning-based reward model that produces structured rationales before assigning scores, enabling dual-space optimization for image generation. (a) As a reward model, it improves RL-based fine-tuning of generators over scalar baselines; (b) as a test-time optimizer, its Generate–Critique–Refine loop matches or surpasses RL-based optimization on multiple benchmarks without parameter updates.
Figure 3: RL (LoRA) training on Qwen-Image using scalar rewards encounter reward hacking (bottom row): as training reward continues to grow, generation quality starts to degenerate, because black box rewards mislead visual generators with biases. In contrast, RationalRewards (top row) sustains generation quality with stable reward growth. See Fig. 10 and 11 for more details.
Figure 4: We implement Preference-Anchored Rationalization as a practical three-phase pipeline.
Figure 5: Example pointwise scores rated by RationalRewards for image/text-to-image generations (rationales omitted). RationalRewards evaluates each result across multiple dimensions.
Figure 6: Qualitative results on image/text-to-image tasks optimized with reinforcement learning (RL) and prompt tuning (PT) using RationalRewards .
Figure 7: Test-Time Prompt Refinement via “Generate-Critique-Refine” loop with RationalRewards .
Judge
MMRB2
EditReward
GenAI-Bench
T2I
Edit
T2I
Edit
Qwen2.5-VL-7B ( Bai et al., 2025 )
50.4
57.1
52.69
–
40.48
Qwen2.5-VL-72B
59.1
64.6
63.9
66.6
74.3
Qwen3-VL-8B ( Yang et al., 2025 )
59.4
61.7
51.9
55.1
50.1
Qwen3-VL-32B
64.1
67.3
64.2
66.9
76.3
EditReward-7B ( Wu et al., 2025e )
–
67.2
56.99
–
65.72
Table 1: Comparison of reward models as evaluators. We include Multimodal Reward Bench 2 (MMRB2), EditReward-Bench, and GenAI-Bench. T2I and Edit means text-to-image and image-to-image respectively.
Model
Action
Attribute
Compound
Layout
Grammar
Logic
Relation
Style
Text
World Know.
Overall
FLUX.1-dev
62.24
67.20
45.75
70.84
62.30
29.77
66.88
85.00
32.18
87.50
60.97
+MultiReward
59.78
68.23
44.21
74.37
59.33
28.25
68.35
76.05
36.21
86.03
60.12
+Qwen3-VL-32B
65.47
72.68
53.28
71.82
60.78
33.24
71.85
85.53
42.15
89.47
66.53
+RationalRewards
67.40
76.36
57.67
72.15
60.29
40.53
74.59
87.20
52.57
90.61
70.34
SD-3.5-Medium
60.41
66.99
53.35
70.31
59.89
37.73
68.78
89.80
15.23
84.34
60.71
+RationalRewards
64.36
81.49
67.98
75.88
58.68
42.37
75.60
89.60
10.05
91.77
70.56
Table 2: Ablation of RationalRewards for Text-to-image RL on UniGenBench++. We compare scalar reward model MultiReward and generic reasoning reward Qwen3-VL-32B .
Model
Representative Aspects
Overall
Light
Reflec.
Deform.
Flux.1 Kontext [dev]
53.64
43.84
33.74
41.07
+PromptEnhance
55.53
45.87
38.14
45.28
+PT ( RationalRewards )
56.87
51.43
41.08
48.12
+PICA SFT
51.21
47.22
33.99
41.93
+RL ( RationalRewards )
51.75
54.81
39.36
44.25
Table 3: Ablation of RationalRewards as dual-space optimizer on editing tasks. For prompt space tuning, we compare pre-generation PromptEnhance ( Wang et al., 2025g ) . For parameter space tuning, we compare SFT and RL with different rewards. We include OOD physics-aware editing, PICA-Bench with representative aspects (Left), and generic editing benchmarks (Right).
Figure 8: RationalRewards (a) enables explainable quality control for data curation; (b) serves as a multi-dimensional reward model driven by transparent rationales; (c) serves as a preference-calibrated test-time prompt tuner that trades compute for better generation quality; (d) fuels regional flaw grounding and dense visual rewards.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Model
Action
Attribute
Compound
Layout
Grammar
Logic
Relation
Style
Text
World Know.
Overall
Open-source / Commercial Models
Nano Banana Pro ( Google DeepMind, 2025 )
91.30
91.95
92.91
93.30
89.59
80.24
95.43
99.30
95.65
97.47
92.72
Seedream-4-5-251128
88.06
91.03
90.08
92.55
84.09
73.17
90.61
99.20
91.67
96.35
89.70
UniWorld-V1 ( Lin et al., 2025 )
66.94
70.62
54.51
68.96
63.77
38.41
67.13
91.10
26.44
82.91
63.11
OmniGen2 ( Wu et al., 2025c )
62.68
72.12
56.31
71.54
59.89
32.50
68.27
91.90
29.02
86.39
63.09
Bagel ( Deng et al., 2025b )
61.89
67.73
56.86
76.59
65.85
23.85
70.64
90.08
0.00
85.42
59.91
Appendix
Table 4: Text-to-image generation results on UniGen benchmark. We report category-level scores and overall performance. Action is the average of Hand, Full Body, Animal, Non Contact, Contact, and State. Layout is the average of 2D and 3D.
Model
ImgEdit-Bench
GEdit-Bench-EN
Add
Adjust
Extract
Replace
Remove
Background
Style
Compose
Action
Overall
G_SC
G_PQ
G_O
AnyEdit ( Yu et al., 2025 )
3.18
2.95
1.88
2.47
2.23
2.23
2.85
1.56
2.65
2.45
3.18
5.82
3.21
UltraEdit ( Zhao et al., 2024 )
3.44
2.81
2.13
2.96
1.45
2.86
3.76
1.91
2.98
2.70
-
-
-
Step1X-Edit ( Liu et al., 2025c )
3.88
3.14
1.76
3.40
2.41
3.16
4.63
2.64
2.52
3.06
7.66
7.35
6.97
BAGEL ( Deng et al., 2025b )
3.56
3.31
1.70
3.30
2.62
3.24
4.49
2.38
4.17
3.20
7.36
6.83
6.52
OmniGen2 ( Wu et al., 2025c )
3.57
3.06
1.77
3.74
3.20
3.57
4.81
2.52
4.68
3.44
7.16
6.77
6.41
Appendix
Table 5: We perform RL tuning and test-time prompt tuning to test RationalRewards on image editing. On ImgEdit-Bench and GEdit-Bench-EN, trading test-time evaluation for better generation yields surprising gains.
Model
LightProp
LightSrcEff
Reflection
Refraction
Deformation
Causality
GlobalStateTrans
LocalStateTrans
Overall
Nano Banana
53.27
54.45
55.99
56.58
47.68
58.93
58.17
52.81
55.40
GPT-Image-1
59.56
61.99
52.61
61.84
44.99
53.16
70.53
51.56
57.83
Nano Banana Pro
59.32
64.69
61.38
60.09
53.55
64.70
72.08
63.41
63.29
Seedream 4.0
58.84
66.04
58.85
62.72
50.12
67.09
77.37
63.62
64.91
GPT-Image-1.5
62.95
71.43
61.21
62.28
57.18
67.23
76.93
66.11
67.01
Uniworld-V1
37.77
34.50
37.44
30.70
30.32
34.18
28.81
38.67
33.80
Appendix
Table 6: We test OOD Generalization of RationalRewards on physics-aware editing tasks (PICABench).
Figure 9: RL with RationalRewards on Qwen-Image (text-to-image generator) and Flux-Kontext [dev] (image-to-image editing). The reward standard-deviation gradually decays as training proceeds. Crucially, the evaluation reward curve on held-out eval-set align well with the score curve on target test benchmarks.
Figure 10: The evolution of generation quality of RL using RationalRewards
Figure 11: Training curves comparison between RationalRewards and scalar reward model, EditReward ( Wu et al., 2025e ) and MultiReward used in DiffusionNFT Zheng et al. (2025) .
Figure 12: Text-to-Image RL using scalar reward model demonstrates reward hacking – while the reward increases, the visual quality of generations degrades notably.
Figure 13: Illustration of Critique Visualization. RationalRewards first analyzes the image and provides critique rationales, then summarizes them and generates referring expressions for GroundingDINO and SAM to produce segmentation masks for problematic regions.
Score
Description
4 (Full match)
All key elements (objects, colors, actions) are represented exactly as described. No hallucinations or unrequested changes.
3 (Minor mismatch)
Most key elements are present, but minor details are missing, incorrect, or slightly inaccurate.
2 (Some mismatch)
Some key elements are missing, altered, or interpreted incorrectly.
1 (Major deviations)
Key elements are completely missing, altered, or contradicted. Instruction is ignored.
Appendix
Table 7: Scoring rubric for Text Faithfulness.
Score
Description
4 (Uses input fully)
All relevant elements from the input (background, style, lighting, identity) are accurately preserved or transformed as instructed.
3 (Minor mismatch)
Most relevant elements are preserved, but a few aspects (e.g., background details, lighting consistency) are missing or incorrectly handled.
2 (Partial mismatch)
Some elements are carried over, but key aspects of the original image are lost or distorted.
1 (Fails to use input)
Key elements of the input image are ignored, misinterpreted, or destroyed.
Appendix
Table 8: Scoring rubric for Image Faithfulness.
Score
Description
4 (No noticeable flaws)
The image is physically plausible (correct lighting, shadows, geometry, anatomy). No visible artifacts (seams, blurring, noise).
3 (Minor flaws)
Small inaccuracies that are noticeable but not strongly disruptive (e.g., slight lighting mismatch, minor texture issues).
2 (Some flaws)
Clear physical or visual errors that disrupt the image (e.g., incorrect perspective, “floating” objects, wrong shadow direction, obvious seams).
1 (Severe flaws)
Major physical/visual errors (e.g., impossible geometry, distorted anatomy, garbled objects, severe artifacts).
Appendix
Table 9: Scoring rubric for Physical and Visual Quality.
Score
Description
4 (Full match)
Text is correct, legible, and integrated well into the image.
3 (Mostly match)
Minor misspellings or inconsistent capitalization.
2 (Partial match)
Major misspellings or distorted text.
1 (Major deviations)
Text is unreadable, severely distorted, or missing.
Appendix
Table 10: Scoring rubric for Text Rendering.
Hyperparameter
Value
Resolution
512 × 512
Guidance Scale (Flux.1 Kontext Dev)
2.5
Sampling Steps (Training)
15 (DPM solver)
Sampling Steps (Evaluation)
20
Noise Level
0.7
Learning Rate
2e-4
Appendix
Table 11: Hyperparameters for RL fine-tuning via DiffusionNFT.
Source Dataset
Task
Raw Pairs
Post-Filtering Pairs
Final Pointwise Samples
EditReward
Image Editing
30K
∼ 21.6K
∼ 43.2K
HPDv3
Text-to-Image
50K
∼ 36K
∼ 55K
RapidData
Text-to-Image
Appendix
Table 12: Training data composition before and after consistency filtering. Each pairwise sample yields two pointwise projection samples (one per image).
Visual reward models are essential for evaluating and improving visual generation models, yet existing approaches typically map task conditions and candidate outputs directly to scalar rewards, leaving implicit what should be evaluated for each individual case. We introduce Think Before You Score, a paradigm that explicitly determines what matters for each case before judging how well the candidate performs. Following this principle, we propose the Thinking Reward Model (TRM), which formulates case-adaptive rubrics, performs rubric-guided assessment, and produces fine-grained pointwise rewards. We further observe that conventional pairwise preference optimization can induce score polarization, and introduce Pairwise Dual-Group Relative Policy Optimization (PD-GRPO), which leverages pairwise supervision to improve reward discrimination while preserving fine-grained pointwise scoring. Extensive experiments on image generation and editing reward-modeling benchmarks demonstrate that TRM achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-source reward models while remaining highly competitive with proprietary alternatives. Moreover, using TRM as a reward for reinforcement learning consistently improves diverse visual generation models, demonstrating that its fine-grained, case-adaptive rewards translate into effective optimization signals for visual generation.
Recent text-to-image generation models have achieved remarkable visual quality, but improving them through post-training remains challenging because no single reward signal captures the full range of human preference. In this work, we develop a simple and effective post-training recipe for open-domain text-to-image generation based on the composition of complementary reward signals. Our reward system consists of two main components: a preference reward, trained on large-scale human preference data using a Bradley-Terry objective to capture overall human aesthetic and perceptual preferences, and rubric-based rewards, which explicitly evaluate prompt faithfulness and other desirable properties while providing safeguards against reward hacking. A key challenge is how to combine these heterogeneous reward signals. We show that a naive weighted average leads to suboptimal optimization behavior, and propose a simple reward composition strategy that more effectively balances preference optimization with rubric satisfaction. In the Arena text-to-image leaderboard (https://arena.ai/), our RL-trained Flux2dev achieves an Elo rating 69 points above the base model, and our post-trained Ideogram-4 surpasses every open-source model on the leaderboard, reaching an Elo of 1223.5. (Claims of state-of-the-art performance are based on the Arena leaderboard snapshot as of September 4, 2026.) Our results suggest that effective rewards for frontier generative-model training require broad coverage of user intent and robustness to exploitation under optimization. To support reproducible research, we release Arena-T2I-Training, a 1K subset of training data that recovers some gains of full-scale training, providing a resource that we hope will facilitate future work on post-training for text-to-image models.
Reward models are central to text-to-image post-training, but visual preference is subjective and better represented as a distribution over rubric scores than as a deterministic scalar. Existing scalar, score-token, and pairwise reward models over-compress uncertainty and fine-grained score differences, while reasoning-based generative rewards provide stronger judgments but are costly to deploy and difficult to use as direct optimization signals. We propose Z-Reward, a teacher-student reward modeling framework that decouples reasoning-heavy judgment from efficient reward deployment. The teacher is a large VLM that uses reasoning to infer rubric-aligned score distributions, and is trained with Group-wise Direct Score Optimization (GDSO), which combines policy-gradient rewards from distribution expectations with direct pointwise and pairwise supervision on score distributions and score gaps. The student is trained with Reasoning-Internalized Score Distillation (RISD), which transfers the teacher's reasoning-conditioned score distribution into a compact VLM without requiring explicit reasoning chains at inference time. On our internally annotated evaluation set, the 27B GDSO teacher reaches 89.6% human preference accuracy, outperforming SFT, RewardDance, and GRPO, while the 9B RISD student reaches 88.6%, outperforming the OPD baseline and closely matching the larger teacher. We further show that Z-Reward can serve as a differentiable reward signal for text-to-image optimization, yielding a 41.3% net human-preference improvement over the SFT baseline.
Xin Jin, Huanqia Cai, Zhen Li +9
Z-Image Team, Alibaba Group · VCIP, CS, Nankai University