Rubric-based reinforcement learning grades a response against many written criteria but collapses them into one reward, which discards the detail the rubric carries and gives no GRPO reward gradient when a group's responses tie. A frozen teacher that reads the rubric as privileged context provides token-level supervision, but we observe an early plateau in the gains over GRPO. RELAY uses advantages and rewards to select positive-advantage and low-scoring zero-advantage rollouts, and monitors the distillation loss to decide when to retire the teacher. Stage 1 combines selective distillation from a frozen teacher with GRPO; a plateau detector then removes the teacher, and Stage 2 continues with GRPO alone. Calibrated on one model-domain pair and reused unchanged in three others, the plateau detector fires between steps 122 and 171. RELAY scores highest in-domain among the compared methods in all four settings, ahead of GRPO on RaR-Medicine by 4.62 points with Qwen3-1.7B and 6.02 with Qwen3-4B. On Qwen3-1.7B/Medicine, removing the teacher from a shared checkpoint outperforms keeping, weakening or refreshing it. Distilling selected rollouts covering about half the response tokens also outperforms distilling all rollouts at a matched average coefficient.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Overview of Relay . Stage 1 adds distillation to GRPO on selected rollouts. A plateau detector then removes the teacher, and Stage 2 continues with GRPO alone.
Rollout
GRPO reward gradient
Distilled
Ai>ϵA
towards the rollout
yes
Ai<−ϵA
away from it
no
∣Ai∣≤ϵA , ri<κt
approximately zero
yes
∣Ai∣≤ϵA , ri≥κt
approximately zero
no
Table 1: Rollout classes and their treatment.
Medicine
Science
Method
RaR-Med.
HealthBench
LLMEval-Med
RaR-Sci.
ResearchQA
Aggregate
Qwen3-1.7B
Base model
34.87
21.91
54.11
47.79
43.54
40.44
+ OPSD
40.20 ↑ 5.33
18.79 ↓ 3.12
55.71 ↑ 1.60
49.25 ↑ 1.46
45.31 ↑ 1.77
41.85 ↑ 1.41
+ GRPO
42.15 ↑ 7.28
23.87 ↑ 1.96
56.28 ↑ 2.17
52.79 ↑ 5.00
51.11 ↑ 7.57
45.24 ↑ 4.80
+ CriPO
42.37 ↑ 7.50
27.97 ↑ 6.06
54.99 ↑ 0.88
55.79 ↑ 8.00
60.58 ↑ 17.04
48.34 ↑ 7.90
Table 2: GPT-5.1 scores averaged over three evaluations (standard deviations: Table 7 ). Models are trained separately by domain; Aggregate averages the five benchmarks equally. Best/second best per model size: bold / underlined . Arrows show point changes from the same-size base model ( ↑ / ↓ : increase/decrease).
Figure 3: Per-token divergence during Stage 1 of Relay across the four settings. Vertical lines mark the plateau-rule trigger. The divergence scale differs across settings, but the rule tests relative change and transfers without re-tuning.
Branch at step 200
210–260
270–300
310–350
360–390
Teacher removed
2.31
4.14
4.71
5.06
Kept at α=0.003
2.49
3.45
3.73
4.11
Teacher refreshed
1.77
3.22
3.55
3.76
Kept at α=0.01
1.70
2.49
2.67
2.88
Table 3: Training-judge validation gain from the shared step-200 branch point, averaged over the indicated steps. Bold marks the column maximum.
Teacher leaves at
141–160
181–200
221–240
281–300
Step 140
0.74
0.58
0.46
0.32
Step 171 (the rule)
0.73
0.72
0.57
0.42
Step 200
0.73
0.72
0.60
0.38
Never
0.73
0.72
0.70
0.60
GRPO (no teacher)
0.25
0.22
0.21
0.18
Table 4: Training-rollout token entropy by hand-off time (Qwen3-1.7B/Medicine), averaged over the steps shown. The four distillation runs share one Stage-1 trajectory and peak at 0.76 near step 130; each turns down after its own hand-off.
Distilled
Tok.
Best Δ
Len.
Tr.
Pos. + low zero
.49
7.9
1,482
0.04
Pos. + all zero
.54
7.6
1,643
0.13
Positive only
.42
7.5
1,309
0.02
Pos. + negative
.91
7.3
1,752
0.35
All rollouts
.92
6.8
2,262
2.39
All, α=.005
.98
7.1
1,978
1.17
Table 5: Rollout selection in Stage 1 (Qwen3-1.7B/Medicine). Tok.: distilled share of response tokens; low zero: rollouts with ∣Ai∣≤ϵA and ri<κt . Best Δ : peak training-judge gain over Stage 1. Len., Tr.: rollout length and truncation (%) at steps 151–200. The all-rollout variant with α=0.005 matches Relay ’s average coefficient.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Setting
Value
Rollout budget
400 steps
Prompts × responses per step
64 × 8
Policy updates per step
2 (32 prompts each)
Sampling (train)
T=1 , top- p=1 , top- k=−1
Prompt / response limit
1,024 / 5,120 tokens
Optimizer
Adam, LR 10−6 constant, no warmup
Appendix
Table 6: Training configuration ( Relay -specific rows at the bottom).
Medicine
Science
Method
RaR-Med.
HealthBench
LLMEval-Med
RaR-Sci.
ResearchQA
Aggregate
Qwen3-1.7B
Base model
34.87±0.14
21.91±1.00
54.11±0.78
47.79±0.10
43.54±0.19
40.44
+ OPSD
40.20±0.23
18.79±0.19
55.71±0.27
49.25±0.54
45.31±0.06
41.85
+ GRPO
42.15±0.33
23.87±0.11
56.28±0.22
52.79±0.06
51.11±0.28
45.24
+ CriPO
42.37±0.31
27.97±0.27
54.99±0.05
55.79±0.22
60.58±0.19
48.34
Appendix
Table 7: Repeated GPT-5.1 evaluation of the checkpoints in Table 2 . Benchmark scores are means ± standard deviations over three evaluations with fresh rollouts; Aggregate reports only the mean. Medicine and science columns use separately trained models.
Dataset
Use
Size
RaR-Medicine train
training
17,711
RaR-Medicine val.
validation
2,240
RaR-Medicine test
in-domain test
2,242
HealthBench subset
additional benchmark
500
LLMEval-Med
additional benchmark
571 (667 turns)
RaR-Science train
training
18,256
Appendix
Table 8: Datasets.
Figure 4: In-domain test-score gains in the first GPT-5.1 evaluation, with 95% question-bootstrap confidence intervals. Each domain uses a separately trained model.
ω
Criterion
Relay
CriPO
GRPO
1
+5
substitutes Ssamp
✓
✓
✓
2
+5
rearranges the equation
✓
✓
✓
3
+4
computes 0.394/0.296
✓
✓
✓
4
+4
handles the units
✓
✓
✓
5
+4
explains the intercept
✓
—
—
6
+3
step-by-step derivation
✓
✓
✓
Appendix
Table 9: Rubric verdicts for the case of Appendix D (RaR-Science, Qwen3-4B). A check mark means the judge found the criterion present, which for the penalty row means the fault was committed. Scores follow Eq. ( 1 ), using the total positive rubric weight as the denominator and clipping the result to [0,1] .
Figure 6: CriPO token entropy at β=0.05 (published) and β=0.01 (used).
Setting
Min
Mean
Max
1.7B / Med.
0.402
0.496
0.594
1.7B / Sci.
0.403
0.499
0.588
4B / Med.
0.413
0.505
0.601
4B / Sci.
0.370
0.476
0.565
Appendix
Table 11: Fraction of response tokens selected for distillation, over all Stage-1 steps of each reported run.
Figure 7: Stage 1 response length (left) and per-token divergence (right) on Qwen3-1.7B/Medicine. Four selection rules from Table 5 use α=0.01 : Relay , positive only, positive plus negative, and all rollouts; GRPO is shown for reference.
Figure 8: Validation score (starting points aligned) and token entropy for GRPO and Relay across all four settings (10-step average). Dotted lines mark Relay ’s hand-off.
Schedule
Best Δ
Step
Length
GRPO
9.8
370
1,374
Always on
12.3
390
2,155
Hand-off @140
13.3
350
2,008
Hand-off @200
14.1
370
2,658
Relay (rule @171)
14.8
400
2,557
Appendix
Table 12: Hand-off schedules (Qwen3-1.7B/Medicine). Best Δ : peak training-judge gain from step 0 (3-step smoothed), reached at the step shown. Length: mean training-rollout response length near the peak. Always on keeps α=0.01 throughout.
Many useful language-model tasks cannot be evaluated by exact outcome verification. Rubric-based reinforcement learning (RL) addresses this issue by scoring open-ended responses against explicit criteria. However, because the reward is assigned after the complete response, the training signal does not directly identify which individual decisions contributed to the final score. We propose a two-stage training framework that uses rubrics first as privileged teacher context for dense token-level supervision, then as rewards for further RL. In the first stage, rubric-privileged on-policy distillation (RP-OPD), a student without access to the rubric matches a rubric-aware teacher's next-token distributions at student-generated prefixes. In the second stage, RL directly optimizes the rubric reward and improves beyond the observed distillation plateau. We evaluate the framework on health and science tasks using open-weight models. Across HealthBench, ResearchQA, and RubricHub Science, we compare post-training methods and vary the amount of SFT or RP-OPD training before RL, finding that our two-stage framework achieves the highest scores among the methods evaluated. RP-OPD + RL shows limited signs of reward hacking on RubricHub Science, whereas the SFT + RL baseline increasingly receives high rewards for claims of rubric compliance without providing the required content. These findings support using rubrics to guide on-policy distillation before applying rubric-based RL.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has become a standard paradigm for post-training large language models (LLMs). While Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) is widely adopted, it suffers from sparse reward signals and loses gradients entirely when all responses within a group receive identical rewards. On-policy distillation (OPD) offers a natural remedy by providing dense, token-level supervision from a teacher model. However, naively combining GRPO with OPD leads to degraded performance, due to three underlying causes: not all samples benefit from distillation; fitting too quickly to the teacher undermines the exploratory capacity of RL; and OPD's advantages are asymmetric, suppressing most tokens. To address these challenges, we propose RSTG (Recovering Learning Signals via Adaptive Teacher Guidance), which applies distillation selectively and precisely where it matters most. At the sample level, OPD is restricted to negative zero-variance prompts with each sample weighted by the teacher's confidence score. At the token level, distillation targets only tokens with high student entropy or large teacher-student divergence. We further augment training with SFT on correct trajectories generated by the teacher model, injecting positive gradient signals where RL yields none. Experiments demonstrate that RSTG substantially outperforms naive GRPO+OPD by +4.02% on math and +3.05% on code.
Zhuowen Han, Jinwei Xiao, Zhengxi Lu +9
TJUNLP Lab, School of Computer Science and Technology, Tianjin University · Meituan Longcat Team
Rubrics have emerged as an alternative to RLVR in open-ended domains where a single ground-truth final answer is not available. Existing rubric-based training methods rely on an LLM verifier that scores each rollout against rubrics. This introduces substantial training-time overhead, exposes optimization to verifier-specific biases, and reduces rubric feedback to a sparse end-of-trajectory signal. We propose Rubric-Guided Self-Distillation (RGSD), a verifier-free training method in which the base policy, conditioned on the rubric, serves as the teacher for the unconditioned student. RGSD distills the rubric-conditioned teacher distribution into the student token-by-token, replacing sparse trajectory-level rewards with dense per-token learning signals and removing the LLM judge from the training loop entirely. Across Qwen-2.5 (3B, 7B) and Qwen3-Thinking (4B, 8B) models on medical and science domains, RGSD achieves rubric satisfaction comparable to judge-based GRPO while using one on-policy rollout per prompt and no training-time verifier calls. Ablations show that raw rubrics provide a stronger teacher enrichment signal than self-generated reference responses, while a stronger GRPO judge can outperform RGSD in some settings, positioning RGSD as a complementary verifier-free alternative when verifier cost or reliability is the bottleneck.
MohammadHossein Rezaei, Anas Mahmoud, Zihao Wang +6