Eat Your Precision: Precision Objective Mitigates Reward Hacking in Rubric-based RL

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 $2.5$--$4\times$ fewer training steps. Rubric rewards should therefore distinguish what should matter in the final answer from what can teach the current policy.

Rubric-based reinforcement learning (Rubric-RL) trains language models where no verifier exists. A judge checks each criterion of a rubric, and the verdicts are aggregated into a reward, most often by a weighted sum. We show that this additive aggregation is the weak point. Under a sum, criteria compensate for one another: a policy that misses the one decision that matters can buy the points back with advice nobody asked for. On clinical consultation, such a policy scores higher and answers worse. Rubric coverage rises while appropriateness on held-out physician criteria falls below the untrained model. The medical criteria are not to blame. Grouped so that they must hold together, the same criteria, unchanged to the word, recover a third of the loss; shorter answers recover almost none. We therefore propose Protocol-level Rubrics (ProRubric), which keeps what the criteria ask for and changes how they are aggregated. It groups a checklist into a few protocol-level dimensions. A dimension counts only when all of its criteria hold and its failure clause does not fire. The grouping is done once, offline, and leaves the optimizer unchanged. ProRubric raises appropriateness by 10.8 points without losing coverage and has the best seven-benchmark average at both scales. Reward validity is set not only by what a rubric verifies, but by how it aggregates. Code is available at https://github.com/Estrellajer/ProRubric

Rubric-based reinforcement learning, in which an LLM judge scores responses against prompt-specific criteria, has become a standard way to post-train language models on tasks without verifiable answers. The rubric, however, is only a proxy for response quality, and a policy trained against it long enough learns to exploit the difference. We train models with GRPO on medical and science rubrics and grade their responses on out-of-distribution (OOD) benchmarks throughout training with two judges: the training judge and a stronger OOD judge. The two scores first rise together and then diverge. The policy is learning to satisfy the training judge without writing better responses, which is a form of reward hacking. To mitigate it, we propose Rubric Dropout, which applies dropout to rubric criteria: at each training step, a random subset of each rubric's criteria is removed from the reward, so the rewarded subset of criteria is resampled at each step. All responses sampled for the same prompt are scored on the same subset, so their rewards remain comparable, and evaluation always uses the full rubric. We also introduce Block Dropout, which drops semantically similar criteria together so that a near duplicate of a dropped criterion cannot keep rewarding the same behavior. Across both benchmarks and models from 1.7B to 8B, dropout improves the gold judge's score on OOD benchmarks by up to 3 percent on HealthBench-Hard and 7 percent on ResearchQA, and it reduces both the gap between the two judges and over-crediting. It keeps in-domain reward close to the baseline, and dropout rates of 30-50 percent work best. Block Dropout improves the gold judge's OOD score further at the same dropout rate. Changing which criteria are rewarded at each step is a simple, inexpensive way to make rubric rewards harder to exploit.