Not Every Rubric Teaches Equally: Policy-Aware Rubric Rewards for RLVR

Reinforcement learning against rubrics, lists of criteria graded by an LLM judge, has become a standard way to post-train language models on tasks with no deterministic answer. The rubric, however, is a fixed proxy for quality, never a complete description of it, and a policy trained against it long enough will learn to exploit the difference. We measure this directly. Training Qwen3-8B with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) on medical and science rubrics and grading out-of-distribution (OOD) benchmarks with both the training judge and a stronger gold judge, we find that the two scores diverge during training. The training judge's score keeps climbing while the gold judge's score peaks and then falls, by 3 points on HealthBench-Hard and by 22 points on ResearchQA. A judge with a fixed bias would shift the gold curve by a constant, not send it down while the training score rises, so the divergence is reward hacking, not judge noise. We propose Rubric Dropout, a one-line fix borrowed from neuron dropout. At every step, we randomly drop a subset of the rubric's criteria before computing the reward, so the policy never optimizes the same rubric twice. The dropped subset is shared across each rollout group, so GRPO's group-relative advantages stay comparable, and evaluation always uses the full rubric. Comparing no dropout against dropout at 30% and 50% on both benchmark pairs, dropout raises the OOD gold score at every matched checkpoint (+1 to +2 points on HealthBench-Hard, +6 to +7 points on ResearchQA), lowers the two hacking measures we track, and costs nothing in domain. Sweeping the dropout fraction shows a broad 30-50% sweet spot, while the natural alternative, reweighting criteria by how useful they are to training, performs worse than no intervention at all in our setting.

We argue that decomposing reward into weighted, verifiable criteria and using an LLM judge to score them provides a partial-credit optimization signal: instead of a binary outcome or a single holistic score, each response is graded along multiple task-specific criteria. We formalize \emph{rubric-grounded reinforcement learning (RL)}: a framework in which the policy is optimized against a structured, multi-criterion reward produced by a frozen LLM judge that conditions on auxiliary grounding the policy never sees. We instantiate the framework by deriving rubrics from an Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)-derived corpus of roughly 100,000 scientific and technical documents and training Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). With GRPO-based training, the model achieves $71.7\%$ normalized reward on held-out rubric evaluation. The GRPO-tuned policy also improves over the base model on four reasoning benchmarks not derived from the training corpus -- GSM8K, MATH, GPQA Main, and GPQA Diamond. These results provide evidence that structured, document-grounded rewards can improve held-out rubric performance and induce transferable reasoning behaviors beyond the corpus used to construct the training environment.

Pointwise reward modeling offers critical signals for LLM post-training, yet struggles with absolute scoring in subjective, non-verifiable settings. Rubric-based methods address this by decomposing evaluation into explicit criteria, but existing approaches typically depend on frontier LLMs and suffer from ties caused by hard Boolean aggregation. We present RUBRIC-ARROW, an alternating framework that jointly trains a rubric generator and a rubric-conditioned judge, with its RL stage using only pairwise preference data. Our method couples a probability-based scoring rule that reduces ties with phase-specific preference-based rewards and an alternating GRPO scheme that together train the pointwise evaluator. Extensive experiments show that RUBRIC-ARROW achieves competitive reward-modeling accuracy and yields consistent gains for downstream policy post-training.