LLM judges are increasingly used to evaluate open-ended responses, but their scores depend strongly on the rubrics that condition them. A vague rubric asking for a response to be ``helpful and factual'' can reward polished answers that invent facts or violate user intent. We treat reusable rubrics as measurement specifications: changing the rubric changes the response quality measurement induced by a fixed judge. We introduce PReMISE, a framework that, given pairwise human-preference data, (i) discovers a policy-level rubric set, and (ii) audits any rubric set under LLM-judge use along four axes: structural adequacy, reliability, preference fit, and adversarial robustness. Across rubric sources no raw source is simultaneously reliable, preference-predictive, and adversarially robust; and high inter-rater agreement does not imply low exploitability. PReMISE is the only rubric source to score non-trivially on applicability, specificity, and effective dimensionality simultaneously. We contribute two audit-targeted repair operations: preference-rank selection raises judge accuracy on paired responses from 65.0% to 68.6%, competitive with the strongest rubric-discovery baselines and leading on two of three judges in our cross-judge sweep; reliability-constrained refinement reduces the rate at which exploit responses receive high scores from 46.4% to 36.0% with little change in inter-judge agreement (α=.531→.519).
Reliable evaluation of open-ended LLM outputs requires fine-grained rubrics, yet expert curation is costly and difficult to scale. Existing automated pipelines rely on strict judge unanimity and binary variance filters, which cannot distinguish measurable rubrics from informative ones. We introduce CalibratedRubric, a task-adaptive framework that combines type-specific scoring, Bayesian rubric-measurability filtering, and item response theory (IRT)-based bank assembly. CalibratedRubric estimates each rubric's measurability with a Beta--Bernoulli agreement posterior and uses a submodular information-coverage objective to construct compact rubric banks over the observed capability range. Across financial, healthcare, general, and legal benchmarks, measurability filtering improves human-gold agreement on JudgmentBench from κ=0.604 to 0.743. IRT-based greedy selection improves cross-fitted rank fidelity over random selection across all six evaluated response blocks and requires only 49 rather than 131 rubrics to reach the target correlation on FinResearchBench decision-support tasks. Task-label perturbations further reduce system separation, confirming the practical relevance of task-adaptive scoring. These results support CalibratedRubric as an efficient, uncertainty-aware approach to open-ended LLM evaluation, with calibration gains depending on sufficient judge redundancy.
Rubric-based evaluation is a promising approach for assessing open-ended outputs from LLM-based research agents, particularly in paper reproduction, where direct paper-to-repository comparison is prone to hallucination. However, constructing paper-specific rubrics requires substantial expert effort, limiting the scalability of benchmarks such as PaperBench. In this work, we present, to our knowledge, the first systematic meta-evaluation of LLM-generated rubrics for paper reproduction. We reformulate rubrics into a checklist-style format and evaluate four generation settings across two backbone models. We meta-evaluate generated rubrics intrinsically by semantic similarity and extrinsically by score alignment with ground-truth rubrics. Our results show that the augmented settings substantially improves downstream evaluation alignment, with the strongest setting approaching the human baseline, while intrinsic gains are more modest. Further analyses reveal that LLM-generated rubrics are often overly fine-grained, biased toward high scores, and less adaptive to paper domains, highlighting both the affordances and limitations.
Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the same criteria inconsistently, produce score attributions that are difficult to audit, and map judgments poorly onto human scoring scales. We define this challenge as criteria transfer: translating human rubric intent into a stable, auditable inference-time scoring protocol. We introduce Rulers, which locks a task-level rubric specification, executes it through structured, evidence-grounded judgments, and calibrates the resulting signals to human score boundaries. Across four rubric-governed benchmarks and multiple frozen backbone models, Rulers achieves stronger agreement with human scores in most evaluated settings, while better matching empirical score distributions and remaining more stable under semantically equivalent rubric perturbations. Calibration controls and component ablations show that these gains cannot be attributed to post-hoc alignment alone, but depend on the combination of fixed criteria, traceable evidence, and calibrated score interpretation. These findings suggest that reliable LLM judging requires faithfully operationalizing human evaluation standards rather than relying on prompt-level scoring alone. Our code is available at https://github.com/LabRAI/Rulers.git.