A model's failures can reveal gaps in the behavioral criteria guiding its training. We introduce RubricOpt, a framework that lets a policy revise these criteria within preference optimization. The policy diagnoses its own rubric-free outputs, retains requirements already covered by the rubric, and edits clauses that leave recurring failures unaddressed. A shared semantic representation connects task demands, preference-data contrasts, and rubric clauses, while a deterministic gate checks evidence references and fixed semantic anchors. The rubric then guides Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) during training, with preference pairs, labels, and the objective held fixed, and is removed at evaluation. Our analysis relates the local effect on rubric-free success to semantic alignment and a residual beyond the measured factors. Experiments on capability and open-ended generation benchmarks show that rubric conditioning can improve outcomes over ordinary DPO, with gains and regressions varying across models and datasets. A matched continuation isolates the contribution of revision from additional training and finds mixed incremental effects for the tested edit, whose feedback overlaps the evaluation set. RubricOpt thus brings the behavioral specification itself into the policy's feedback loop.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The RubricOpt loop. (a) Task demand and preference-data supply share eight factor axes. (b) Matched Prefer/Avoid clauses condition both responses during DPO. (c) Rubric-free evaluation supplies feedback for policy self-revision and the next refine / keep decision. Dashed frames group stages. Green boxes denote computation.
Figure 2: Policy-driven rubric refinement (appendix C.2 ). Prompt stages 1–5 diagnose failures, attribute gaps, propose edits, and audit the candidate. The audit is advisory; step 6 decides acceptance. Covered requirements and rejected edits retain the original clause. The excerpt shows the factual-grounding edit. The dashed frame groups prompt stages. Green boxes denote computation.
Figure 3: Diagnosis on shared semantic factors. (a) Contrast coverage (fraction of pairs) on both corpora using the same frozen judge; the dashed line marks the 0.25 sparsity threshold. (b) Qwen3-4B demand, averaged equally over four reasoning or three knowledge benchmarks. Demand is the success–failure gap on the 0 – 4 judge scale. Factors follow appendix A.2 .
Figure 4: Semantic demand in Qwen3-4B and Qwen3-8B. Lines connect the same factor; error bars show recorded 95% confidence intervals. r is Pearson correlation across the eight factors.
Tulu3 comprehensive capability (%)
HelpSteer3 open-ended generation
Method
GSM8K
MATH- Hard
BBH
MuSR
ARC
Truthful QA
MMLU- Pro
Avg.
MT- Bench
Arena- Hard (%)
Wild- Bench
Avg. Δ (%)
Qwen3-4B
Instruct
85.90
62.24
12.82
43.39
62.80
52.27
41.98
51.63
6.320
49.0
3.730
−2.96
Ordinary DPO
84.53
39.15
15.43
42.59
61.09
52.71
41.88
48.20
6.890
50.9
3.617
0.00
RubricOpt -R1
86.81
43.35
19.64
43.12
61.35
53.74
42.10
50.02
6.930
53.0
3.727
+2.58
RubricOpt -R2
80.74
37.12
22.73
42.06
59.47
55.16
40.43
48.24
—
Table 1: Rubric-free Qwen3 results on both benchmark suites, each from its own dataset. Capability scores and their unweighted seven-task mean are percentages from the Tulu3 runs. The open-ended protocols come from the HelpSteer3 runs: MT-Bench and WildBench use native scores and Arena-Hard is the win rate against GPT-4-0314 (%). Open-ended Avg.Δ=3100∑b(sb/sbDPO−1) averages relative changes across all three benchmarks against the same block’s DPO control. Bold marks maxima within each model block (including ties). Shading marks rubric-trained rows.
Tulu3 comprehensive capability (%)
HelpSteer3 open-ended generation
Method
GSM8K
MATH- Hard
BBH
MuSR
ARC
Truthful QA
MMLU- Pro
Avg.
MT- Bench
Arena- Hard (%)
Wild- Bench
Avg. Δ (%)
Instruct
45.75
19.65
36.95
52.45
79.45
58.75
30.05
46.15
5.090
18.1
2.336
−8.44
Ordinary DPO
44.45
20.90
40.40
50.95
76.50
53.90
30.00
45.30
4.850
24.0
2.477
0.00
RubricOpt -R1
47.90
21.50
32.45
51.85
75.60
55.40
32.15
45.26
5.140
25.8
2.480
+4.53
Table 2: Mistral-7B results on both benchmark suites, each from its own dataset. Capability scores and their unweighted seven-task mean are percentages. Open-ended Avg. Δ follows the definition in Tab. 1 . Bold marks maxima within each dataset block; shading marks rubric-trained rows.
Method
BBH
MATH-Hard
MT-Bench
Arena-Hard
WildBench
Avg. Δ (%)
RubricOpt -R1
14.96
64.18
6.93
53.0
3.727
+2.58
RubricOpt -R2 ( keep )
18.05
63.82
6.419
54.6
3.781
+1.66
RubricOpt -R2 ( refine )
17.80
63.72
6.825
54.5
3.836
+4.06
Table 3: Qwen3-4B matched continuation on HelpSteer3. Both branches start from RubricOpt -R1 and differ only in rubric text. Evaluation is rubric-free. Open-ended Avg. Δ follows the relative-DPO definition in Tab. 1 . Bold marks column maxima.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Factor
Decisive
Agree
Decisive-only rate
f1 task comprehension
11
10
0.9091
f2 reasoning validity
52
41
0.7885
f3 verification and calibration
232
143
0.6164
f4 factual and evidential grounding
7
6
0.8571
f5 completeness
105
80
0.7619
f6 instruction adherence
15
12
0.8000
Appendix
Table 4: Blind pairwise agreement across four benchmarks. Pairwise verdicts are compared with the direction of independent per-response scores. Decisive excludes ties in either judgment; agreement rates use this subset.
Benchmark
Instruct
Ordinary DPO
f2 Criterion
f7 Criterion
GSM8K accuracy
0.8945
0.8955
0.9015
0.8910
GSM8K pass@4
0.928
0.928
0.932
0.926
MATH-Hard accuracy
0.9070
0.9105
0.9125
0.9095
MATH-Hard pass@4
0.964
0.964
0.966
0.962
MuSR accuracy
0.5870
0.5825
0.5795
0.5840
MuSR pass@4
0.706
0.708
0.708
0.686
Appendix
Table 5: Pilot accuracy and pass@4. Instruct is the untrained starting model. Trained conditions share pairs, labels, objective, data order, and LoRA configuration, differing only in criterion text. Bold marks row maxima, including ties.
Condition
GSM8K
MMLU-Pro
TruthfulQA
ARC
BBH
MuSR
OFF
0.8995
0.6390
0.6955
0.9070
0.4310
0.5755
R1 ON
0.8960
0.6205
0.6895
0.8945
0.4185
0.5640
R2 ON
0.9055
0.6285
0.6905
0.9000
0.4680
0.5775
Appendix
Table 6: Rubric reinsertion on the same checkpoint and matched sampled items (accuracy fractions).
Mean factor-score gap
Factor
GSM8K
MATH-Hard
BBH
MuSR
ARC
TruthfulQA
MMLU-Pro
f1
+0.080
+0.039
+0.023
+0.005
+0.110
+0.100
+0.069
f2
+0.170
+0.246
+0.066
+0.047
+0.248
+0.157
+0.235
f3
−0.051
+0.090
+0.018
+0.025
+0.105
+0.145
+0.142
f4
+0.036
+0.054
+0.028
+0.006
+0.093
+0.150
+0.091
f5
+0.158
+0.486
+0.232
+0.038
+0.148
+0.034
+0.399
Appendix
Table 7: Qwen3-4B diagnostic matrix: mean success–failure gaps on the 0 – 4 judge scale, followed by Cohen’s d . Bold shaded gaps are at least 0.15 .
Factor
μk
Ck
Pk
Tie rate
Reduction
f1 task comprehension
0.1042
0.3379
0.2118
0.6621
—
f2 reasoning validity
0.0908
0.1463
0.1032
0.8537
13%
f3 verification and calibration
0.0818
0.2202
0.1506
0.7798
—
f4 factual and evidential grounding
0.0866
0.1493
0.0992
0.8507
—
f5 completeness
0.1556
0.4743
0.3037
0.5257
38%
f6 instruction adherence
0.0988
0.3405
0.2046
0.6595
—
Appendix
Table 8: HelpSteer3 supply statistics over all assessable pairs: mean signed contrast μk , contrast coverage Ck=Pr(∣δ∣≥1) , and positive fraction Pk=Pr(δ>0) . Shading marks Ck<0.25 . Reduction is the relative percentage drop in mean contrast after length matching, where reported.
Figure 5: Length sensitivity of HelpSteer3 supply estimates. Points show mean chosen–rejected gaps for four factors on the 0 – 4 judge scale, using all 38,173 pairs or 9,551 length-matched pairs ( ∣ΔL∣≤164 characters). Δ is matched minus all.
Cell
Comparison
Δ
Reading
4B × HS3
Common − Ordinary DPO
+0.0090
positive
Common + Specific − Ordinary DPO
+0.0047
positive
Common + Low − Ordinary DPO
+0.0040
positive
RubricOpt -R1 − Ordinary DPO
+0.0023
null
RubricOpt -R2 ( keep ) − RubricOpt -R1
+0.0309
positive
RubricOpt -R2 ( refine ) − RubricOpt -R2 ( keep )
−0.0025
null
Appendix
Table 9: Full-subtask BBH differences within each model–dataset cell (accuracy fractions). Shading marks the matched refine -minus- keep comparison.
HelpSteer3 comprehensive capability (%)
HelpSteer3 open-ended generation
Method
GSM8K
MATH- Hard
BBH
MuSR
ARC
Truthful QA
MMLU- Pro
Avg.
MT- Bench
Arena- Hard
Wild- Bench
Avg. Δ
Qwen3-4B
Instruct
85.90
62.24
12.82
43.39
62.80
52.27
41.98
51.63
6.320
49.0%
3.730
−2.96
Ordinary DPO
87.57
63.64
14.73
43.12
62.63
53.91
42.30
52.56
6.890
50.9%
3.617
0.00
Common
87.04
63.48
15.64
43.12
63.23
53.72
42.23
52.64
6.720
52.3%
3.711
+0.96
Common + Specific
87.04
63.74
15.21
42.99
63.40
53.71
42.25
52.62
6.610
53.1%
3.840
+2.14
Appendix
Table 10: Per-benchmark factor-set results on Qwen3-4B with HelpSteer3. Accuracy and Arena-Hard win rate are percentages. Avg. is the unweighted seven-task accuracy mean. Open-ended protocols use native scores. Avg.Δ is the relative change against ordinary DPO across MT-Bench, Arena-Hard, and WildBench. Each rubric includes Common, with Specific and/or Low-demand factors added. Bold marks column maxima. Shading marks rubric-trained rows.
Benchmark
f1
f2
f3
f4
f5
f6
f7
f8
GSM8K
+0.113
+0.130
−0.096
+0.014
+0.189
+0.058
−0.065
+0.171
MATH-Hard
+0.011
+0.079
+0.182
+0.013
+0.144
+0.058
+0.163
+0.080
BBH
−0.038
−0.007
+0.142
+0.001
−0.100
−0.028
−0.171
+0.073
MuSR
+0.022
+0.042
+0.039
+0.012
+0.042
+0.022
+0.038
+0.024
ARC
+0.072
+0.167
+0.109
+0.089
+0.141
+0.033
−0.006
−0.035
TruthfulQA
+0.016
+0.053
+0.078
+0.100
−0.017
−0.031
−0.131
+0.039
Appendix
Table 11: Qwen3-8B success–failure gaps on the 0 – 4 judge scale, pooling diagnostic and held-out halves within the model. Bold shaded cells have ∣gap∣≥0.15 . The Qwen3-4B matrix is in Tab. 7 .
Rubric-guided generation uses explicit, task-specific criteria to steer, score, and improve model outputs when quality is hard to measure automatically.
Rubric-based reward models (RMs) evaluate responses against explicit criteria. However, existing methods often derive criteria from observed response candidates, introducing response-induced bias that may limit rubric generalizability. Their judges also struggle with mechanical constraints when relying on reading alone, and commonly used pairwise judges provide only relative preferences, complicating their direct use for policy optimization. We propose ReVeR, a pointwise rubric RM that derives hard rules and graded principles by reasoning about the instruction alone and evaluates responses independently through tool-augmented judging. Both components are trained through label-blind distillation, in which preference labels only filter a teacher's outputs, yielding ReVeR-Traces, a large-scale dataset of rubric-reasoning and judging trajectories. Experiments demonstrate that ReVeR outperforms pairwise rubric RMs in average preference accuracy, most clearly on instruction following, as well as in test-time scaling and downstream policy optimization. We further find that generator RL improves preference accuracy while reducing rubric fidelity, and that higher preference accuracy does not necessarily translate into better downstream policies. These findings highlight that rubric fidelity, preference accuracy, and downstream utility are distinct properties, shedding light on future RM research.
The effectiveness of Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) depends on preference data that reflect the quality differences that matter in multimodal tasks. Existing pipelines often rely on off-policy perturbations or coarse outcome-based signals, which are not well suited to fine-grained visual reasoning. We propose rDPO, a preference optimization framework based on instance-specific rubrics. For each image-instruction pair, we create a checklist-style rubric of essential and additional criteria to score responses from any possible policies. The instruction-rubric pool is built offline and reused during the construction of on-policy data. On public reward modeling benchmarks, rubric-based prompting massively improves a 30B-A3B judge and brings it close to GPT-5.4. On public downstream benchmarks, rubric-based filtering raises the macro average to 82.69, whereas outcome-based filtering drops it to 75.82 from 81.14. When evaluating scalability on a comprehensive benchmark, rDPO achieves 61.01, markedly outperforming the style-constrained baseline (52.36) and surpassing the 59.48 base model. Together, these results show that visual preference optimization benefits from combining on-policy data construction with instance-specific criterion-level feedback.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has made post-training highly effective when correctness can be checked automatically. However, many important model behaviors require satisfying several qualitative criteria at once. Rubric-based rewards address this setting by grading prompt-specific criteria and aggregating them into a scalar reward. Yet standard static aggregations conflate a criterion's human-assigned importance with its current usefulness as an optimization signal. We show that this assumption breaks down in rubric RL: many important criteria are already saturated or currently unreachable, while criteria that distinguish rollouts are not necessarily those with the largest human weights. We introduce POW3R, a policy-aware rubric reward framework that preserves human weights and category balance as the rubric objective while adapting criterion-level reward weights during training. POW3R uses rollout-level contrast to emphasize criteria that currently separate the policy's outputs, making the GRPO reward more informative without changing the underlying evaluation target. Across three base policies on two datasets spanning multimodal and text-only settings, POW3R wins 24 of 30 base-policy/metric comparisons, improving both mean rubric reward and strict completion (the fraction of prompts whose response satisfies every required rubric criterion) over vanilla GRPO with rubric rewards, and reaches the same plateau in 2.5--4× fewer training steps. Rubric rewards should therefore distinguish what should matter in the final answer from what can teach the current policy.