RubricRM: Generative Reward Modeling via Dynamic Rubrics for Image Generation and Editing
Organizations: Peking University · Alibaba Group · Alibaba DAMO Academy
Abstract
Reward models play an essential role in aligning visual generative models, yet most existing visual reward models use a single scalar score or rely on fixed criteria that cannot adapt to different instructions. This limits both interpretability and task sensitivity, especially for text-to-image generation and instruction-based image editing, where different inputs require different evaluation dimensions. We propose RubricRM, a pairwise generative reward modeling framework that first produces an input-specific rubric with evaluation dimensions, weights, and scoring criteria, and then applies the rubric to score candidate images. We train dedicated RubricRM models for text-to-image generation and image editing using a two-stage training pipeline: supervised fine-tuning teaches the model the rubric-based scoring paradigm, while GRPO further improves scoring through fine-grained dimension-level rewards. Experiments on multiple generation and editing benchmarks show that RubricRM outperforms existing specialized reward models and remains competitive with strong proprietary MLLM judges despite using smaller backbones. Our models, data, and code are available at https://github.com/zijiankan/RubricRM.
Figures & tables
| Metric | Text-to-Image | Image Editing |
| #Pairs | 31,835 | 30,695 |
| SFT/RL | 16,835/15,000 | 15,695/15,000 |
| Taxonomy (P/S) | 6/42 | 12/30 |
| Avg. tags | 3.3 | 1.4 |
| Multi-tag (%) | 94.9 | 31.8 |
| Avg. dim. | 3.9 | 3.2 |
| Model | MMRB2 | GenAI- Bench | GenAI- Bench- Verified |
| Proprietary MLLMs | |||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 70.8 | 65.8 | 75.3 |
| GPT-5.4 | 67.5 | 64.2 | 74.2 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | 70.5 | 67.8 | 77.4 |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | 74.4 | 73.9 | 84.8 |
| Open-source MLLMs | |||
| Model | MMRB2 | EditReward-ERB | EditScore-ERB | ||||||
| K=2 | K=3 | K=4 | Avg | PF | C | O | Avg | ||
| Proprietary MLLMs | |||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 71.7 | 79.0 | 46.0 | 10.8 | 44.1 | 87.6 | 67.4 | 81.4 | 79.3 |
| GPT-5.4 | 68.5 | 78.2 | 40.7 | 12.2 | 42.5 | 83.7 | 62.8 | 76.3 | 74.6 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | 71.3 | 80.5 | 38.0 | 12.2 | 42.2 | 81.4 | 65.5 | 77.4 | 75.2 |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | 74.9 | 78.2 | 45.3 | 14.9 | 45.0 | 87.7 | 71.6 | 84.1 | 81.6 |
| Configuration | MMRB2 | GenAI-Bench | GenAI-Bench-Verified |
| Qwen3.5-4B | 63.3 | 61.9 | 69.7 |
| + SFT | 70.1 ( 6.8) | 72.0 ( 10.1) | 82.9 ( 13.1) |
| + RL | 70.5 ( 0.4) | 73.2 ( 1.2) | 83.1 ( 0.2) |
| Qwen3.5-9B | 66.9 | 63.4 | 72.5 |
| + SFT | 70.3 ( 3.4) | 73.0 ( 9.6) | 83.2 ( 10.7) |
| + RL | 72.0 ( 1.7) | 74.1 ( 1.2) | 84.5 ( 1.2) |
| Configuration | MMRB2 | EditReward-ERB | EditScore-ERB |
| Qwen3.5-4B | 64.7 | 37.1 | 72.2 |
| + SFT | 71.5 ( 6.8) | 43.6 ( 6.5) | 83.3 ( 11.1) |
| + RL | 73.2 ( 1.7) | 45.5 ( 1.9) | 85.5 ( 2.2) |
| Qwen3.5-9B | 64.4 | 37.4 | 72.0 |
| + SFT | 73.8 ( 9.4) | 45.0 ( 7.6) | 85.1 ( 13.1) |
| + RL | 75.4 ( 1.6) | 46.4 ( 1.4) | 85.6 ( 0.5) |
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Primary | Secondary label | Cov. (%) |
| Common Objects | People | 45.81 |
| Style | Realistic Photography | 38.83 |
| Composition & Perspective | Other | 26.34 |
| Common Objects | Everyday Items | 24.55 |
| Common Objects | Architecture & Interior | 23.33 |
| Common Objects | Natural Scenery | 15.53 |
| Primary | Secondary label | Cov. (%) |
| Object Editing | Add Object | 21.01 |
| Attribute Editing | Color Change | 14.30 |
| Object Editing | Remove Object | 12.52 |
| Background Editing | Background Replacement | 11.82 |
| Text Editing | Text Editing | 11.17 |
| Object Editing | Replace Object | 10.77 |
| Semantic group | Rubric atom | Dim. share (%) | Avg. wt. | Representative original dimension titles |
| Semantic Alignment | Prompt alignment | 7.99 | 32.7 | Content Accuracy; Semantic Accuracy; Semantic Alignment |
| Semantic Alignment | Text rendering | 1.93 | 32.2 | Text Accuracy; Text Rendering; Text Rendering Accuracy |
| Semantic Alignment | Reasoning & knowledge | 1.78 | 29.7 | Composition & Spatial Logic; Logical Consistency; Compositional Logic |
| Subject & Attributes | Subject fidelity | 14.89 | 30.3 | Subject Accuracy; Subject Representation; Character Accuracy |
| Subject & Attributes | Anatomy / pose | 9.58 | 27.9 | Anatomical Integrity; Anatomical Correctness; Anatomical Coherence |
| Subject & Attributes | Attribute fidelity | 8.64 | 26.5 | Color Palette; Attire Accuracy; Lighting & Color Palette |
| Semantic group | Rubric atom | Dim. share (%) | Avg. wt. | Representative original dimension titles |
| Instruction & Edit | Instruction alignment | 8.88 | 39.6 | Instruction Alignment; Instruction Compliance; Instruction Adherence |
| Instruction & Edit | Object edit | 7.72 | 36.4 | Object Removal; Object Addition; Object Replacement |
| Instruction & Edit | Text editing | 5.47 | 35.9 | Text Accuracy; Text Rendering Accuracy; Text Placement |
| Instruction & Edit | Attribute edit | 4.45 | 35.4 | Color Modification; Material Transformation; Color Transformation |
| Preservation | Source preservation | 20.90 | 31.4 | Content Preservation; Image Preservation; Structural Preservation |
| Preservation | Subject preservation | 5.78 | 33.5 | Subject Preservation; Context Preservation; Foreground Preservation |
| Model | Subject | Appearance | Scene | Advanced | Overall | ||||||||||
| PF | C | O | PF | C | O | PF | C | O | PF | C | O | PF | C | O | |
| Proprietary MLLMs | |||||||||||||||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 83.9 | 64.5 | 82.9 | 86.8 | 69.2 | 76.2 | 93.8 | 74.5 | 88.8 | 88.7 | 63.5 | 83.2 | 87.6 | 67.4 | 81.4 |
| GPT-5.4 | 86.1 | 56.2 | 79.7 | 82.8 | 62.8 | 73.3 | 91.9 | 72.4 | 82.5 | 79.2 | 62.8 | 74.8 | 83.7 | 62.8 | 76.3 |
| Gemini 2.5 Pro | 81.6 | 61.3 | 77.5 | 75.9 | 69.8 | 75.9 | 82.6 | 72.4 | 80.1 | 85.7 | 62.3 | 79.7 | 81.4 | 65.5 | 77.4 |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | 86.5 | 65.9 | 86.3 | 83.0 | 75.1 | 77.8 | 90.1 | 76.4 | 90.8 | 91.7 | 70.3 | 87.5 | 87.7 | 71.6 | 84.1 |
| Backbone | Supervision | Text-to-Image | Image Editing | ||||
| MMRB2 | GenAI- Bench | GenAI- Bench- Verified | MMRB2 | EditReward- ERB | EditScore- ERB | ||
| Qwen3.5-4B | Rubric SFT | 70.1 | 72.0 | 82.9 | 71.5 | 43.6 | 83.3 |
| Label-only SFT | 65.1 ( 5.0) | 68.7 ( 3.3) | 77.8 ( 5.1) | 69.2 ( 2.3) | 39.4 ( 4.2) | 85.4 ( 2.1) | |
| Qwen3.5-9B | Rubric SFT | 70.3 | 73.0 | 83.2 | 73.8 | 45.0 | 85.1 |
| Label-only SFT | 66.4 ( 3.9) | 71.1 ( 1.9) | 80.9 ( 2.3) | 69.2 ( 4.6) | 40.8 ( 4.2) | 83.9 ( 1.2) | |
| Task | Same inst. | Same type | Diff. type | Weight diff. |
| Gen | 0.763 | 0.597 | 0.563 | 0.102 |
| Edit | 0.800 | 0.651 | 0.612 | 0.110 |
Reward Modeling
Reward modeling learns scores or rankings that capture human goals and task success, guiding AI selection, reinforcement learning, and alignment.
See all 313 papers