Rubrics

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is expanding from tasks with well-defined correctness signals, such as mathematics and code, toward multifaceted quality requirements specified by multi-dimensional rubrics. Since policy optimization consumes one scalar per rollout, rubric-based pipelines must map multiple criterion scores into a scalar reward. This aggregation is often treated as score scaling, but it implicitly determines how quality dimensions trade off during training. The prevailing practice, normalizing each criterion and taking a linear combination, assumes that cardinal score differences are comparable across criteria and that gains on one criterion compensate for failures on another; both assumptions are unreliable when criteria are semantically heterogeneous. We propose Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rubric-based Ranking (RLVR$^2$), a verifiable ranking paradigm for rubric-based RLVR. For each criterion, RLVR$^2$ converts rubric scores into criterion-specific within-group ordinal outcomes, recovers a latent utility from the resulting comparison matrix, and merges these utilities into one training signal. By retaining only within-group ordering and discarding raw score magnitudes, RLVR$^2$ avoids calibrating heterogeneous rubric scales. It further supports objective-preserving attribute adjustment: auxiliary attributes that correlate with observed rankings but are not training objectives can enter the estimation without expanding the rubric or rewarding them directly. Across three model scales and 16 benchmarks, RLVR$^2$ consistently outperforms representative rubric-based baselines, achieving the best overall performance on most benchmarks at every scale. Analysis shows it controls systematic effects tied to reasoning efficiency and response formatting while preserving the quality objective.

Language model-generated rubrics are increasingly used as reward signals for rubric-based reinforcement learning, LLM-as-a-judge evaluation, and automated grading. Such rubrics are reliable only if they reward honest answers over adversarial answers optimized to exploit them. Yet their robustness to such optimization remains poorly understood. We isolate the hardest regime: impossible tasks, where the prompt pressures the model toward an unsupported conclusion, so the only honest response is to acknowledge the impossibility. We introduce ImpossibleRubrics, a benchmark of 169 impossible tasks spanning six impossibility categories, each paired with a verifiable oracle certificate specifying what an honest answer may and may not claim, together with 48 answerable controls. Rather than providing fixed rubrics, ImpossibleRubrics provides task environments and certificates, allowing rubrics to be generated downstream and then adversarially tested for whether they reward certificate-violating answers. Eleven generators are exploited 8--26% of the time on the unbiased 150-of-169 environment cut; on a deliberately selected stress cut the strongest generator we measured is still exploited 36% while a certificate-faithful rubric is exploited 0%, so what we measure is a rubric-quality gap, not task impossibility. One result runs against intuition. A single generic rubric ("be decisive, penalize hedging") used unchanged for every task is exploited 64% of the time, and seven of the eleven generators are exploited more often than that while writing a rubric tailored to each one. The tailored criteria appear to tell an attacker which claim to fabricate. The problem is not that rubrics are vague; it is that they are specific about the wrong things.

LLM-based agents increasingly rely on persistent skills, i.e., reusable procedural prompts, to adapt without weight updates. Existing skill self-evolution methods directly revise skill text based on execution feedback, but each oracle evaluation requires a full agent rollout, creating a supervision bottleneck that confines search to failure-patching updates. Our key insight is that ranking is a smoother supervision target than absolute outcome regression: identifying which skill is better requires fewer oracle evaluations than predicting exact scores. Building on this insight, we propose SkillLift, which decouples skill search from oracle cost by learning an oracle-aligned rubric as a structured evaluation space. We formalize this as a bilevel optimization problem solved via alternating optimization: an inner loop uses the frozen rubric as a cheap surrogate to guide skill revision at no oracle cost, while an outer loop invokes a small number of oracle rollouts to re-align the rubric via rank correlation, amortizing oracle cost and stabilizing text-space updates. Experiments on complex agent task benchmarks show that our method outperforms existing auto-skill methods with 40--70% less token cost compared to frontier evolving methods. Codes are available at https://github.com/WalteR-MittY-pro/SkillLift.

Hallucinations can undermine clinician trust in LLMs, making it important that evaluation methods capture clinically relevant errors. Rubric-based evaluation has become the leading approach for assessing LLMs in medicine, but it is unclear whether rubric scores reflect such errors. We first study this in a controlled setting using MedHallu, finding that more specific rubrics better distinguish correct from hallucinated responses. To test this systematically, we develop a taxonomy of medical hallucination types and a clinician-validated error-injection pipeline that creates matched correct and error-injected responses. Across HealthBench, HealthBench Professional, and LiveMedBench, our clinically relevant hallucinations are missed by rubrics, often leaving scores unchanged. We find that rubrics are most effective when explicitly checking facts, and are less effective for additional or unexpected errors they do not anticipate. A preliminary retrieval-based factuality check recovers some of the rubric-blind errors, suggesting a complementary approach. These findings reveal systematic blind spots in current medical evaluation of LLMs and suggest that rubric scores alone are insufficient to establish clinical reliability, potentially undermining clinician trust and confidence in clinical deployment.

Open-ended reinforcement learning often relies on rubric-based rewards for tasks without directly verifiable answers. Yet the policy and reward system form a dynamic feedback loop: as the policy optimizes the current reward, an initially useful reward system may become unreliable due to reward hacking or reduced response discriminability. The reward system should therefore evolve rather than remain fixed during training. Existing dynamic-rubric methods adapt evaluation criteria, but reward failures can also arise from scoring mechanisms or signal composition. We introduce EvoRS, a self-evolving RL framework that evolves the reward system from on-policy experience, representing it as an executable Reward-DAG. Specifically, an agentic designer updates this system from on-policy rollouts and reward traces to maintain train-time reliability. Across writing and roleplay, EvoRS achieves the best quality under all three judges, outperforming the policy by $2.107$ and $4.767$ points, respectively, while reducing reward hacking and coverage failures and preserving reward informativeness. Ablations confirm that a comprehensive fixed reward system cannot remain reliable in open-ended tasks and must evolve throughout training.

Reproducibility is essential to scientific progress, yet the growing volume and complexity of scientific publications make exhaustive manual verification increasingly impractical. Although recent advances in large language model (LLM) agents enable automated experiment reproduction, existing evaluations largely focus on final repositories and are typically limited to machine learning (ML). We introduce AgentActionBench, a process-oriented benchmark for evaluating agent-based experiment reproduction across ML and AI4Science domains. Our framework uses an MCP-based Action Recorder to capture agents' behaviour throughout the reproduction process and evaluates the resulting traces with paper-specific rubrics. AgentActionBench contains 150 papers, including 120 ML papers and 30 AI4Science papers. A human-annotated subset covering 10% of the benchmark provides validation data, while model-assisted augmentation expands the full benchmark to more than 10,000 rubric items. Experimental results show that current systems remain limited, with execution as the primary bottleneck. Meanwhile, the strong Pearson and Spearman correlations between model-generated and human-annotated rubrics validate the reliability of our scalable rubric-generation approach.

Large Audio Language Models (LALMs) have shown strong performance on audio reasoning benchmarks, but accuracy alone cannot distinguish true reasoning from superficial pattern matching, often overestimating reasoning ability since high scores may result from guessing rather than genuine audio understanding. Evaluating the reasoning process itself is essential for improving LALMs' reasoning ability, yet remains challenging. Existing methods either rely on costly human annotation or opaque LLM-as-judge approaches, making them impractical, biased, and lacking transparency. Moreover, audio reasoning introduces unique challenges absent in text-based settings, perceptual hallucination and cross-modal alignment between audio understanding and textual inference, hence text-based evaluation frameworks cannot be directly applied. Therefore, we propose ARIA-Rubrics (Audio Reasoning Integrity Assessment), a lightweight, annotation-free gold reasoning chains, automatic and transparent framework comprising six complementary metrics that evaluate audio reasoning quality across perceptual grounding, reasoning coherence, and answer consistency. We use Chain-of-Thought prompting as an externalization mechanism to make the reasoning process observable. Experiments on 9 models across 2 benchmarks identify three reasoning modes of current LALMs with actionable directions for future development, with ARIA-Rubrics achieving high correlation with human judgments. The code is available at the Github Repository.

As LLMs are increasingly used for pre-submission self-review, there is growing demand for feedback that not only identifies weaknesses but also guides authors toward concrete revisions. We study this as Actionable Peer-review Generation and decompose it into two subtasks: diagnostic claim generation and revision suggestion generation. We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans. Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback. From real review-rebuttal threads on OpenReview, we construct ActReview-40K by aligning reviewer weaknesses with author responses and grounding the resulting feedback in localized paper evidence. We post-train Qwen3-8B-Base with multi-task supervised fine-tuning followed by GRPO using candidate-aware, weakness-specific rubric rewards. We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness. Experiments show that ActReview outperforms prior specialized review-generation models on actionability and grounding while remaining competitive with strong prompt-based LLMs. Human evaluation confirms improved revision usefulness while revealing a remaining gap in technical accuracy, and additional analyses support generalization to held-out papers and robustness across independent judges.

Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards works well when a task has a programmatic checker, but most long-horizon agent domains have none. We work in the outcome-blind setting, where ground-truth success signals are not available. Multi-criteria rubrics are a popular way to supply such a reward; they are scored once per trajectory, but a single scalar is a poor signal across tens of steps. We propose DRACO: Distributing Rubric-based Advantage for Credit Optimization. It generates rubrics dynamically during training to track the policy's evolving capability, scores those rubrics once per completed trajectory, and redistributes that judgment over the steps responsible for annotated rubrics to produce differentiated per-step advantages in GRPO. The redistribution is closed-form and does not introduce any trained attribution module. On AppWorld, DRACO gains 15.9 points over the base model and 5.3 points over GRPO trained with a sparse ground-truth reward, despite not using any verifiers itself. On out-of-domain Tau-Bench, it gains 5.3 points over the base model even without a frontier judge, beating both ground-truth-reward training and other rubric-based training settings. The code for DRACO is available at https://github.com/IBM/draco.

Training open-ended agents via reinforcement learning (RL) is hindered by the lack of verifiable gold answers and scalable rubrics. Moreover, even near the model's capability boundary, long-horizon open-ended agentic tasks often yield brittle and unstable rewards, resulting in weak or noisy rollout contrast that obscures fine-grained optimization signals for group-based policy learning. To address these challenges, we propose ARISE-RL, a novel full-cycle self-evolution framework that couples a task/rubric Generator and a reasoning Solver through rubric-mediated co-evolution. The Generator grounds tool-related rubric criteria in real tool observations and is rewarded for producing valid, intermediate-difficulty tasks aligned with the Solver's evolving capability boundary. The Solver, in turn, learns from fine-grained rubric satisfaction signals through multi-step reasoning and tool use. We further introduce Reward-Gated Self-Evolution Distillation (RG-SED), which selectively distills a memory-augmented variant of the same policy back into itself only when the memory yields empirical reward improvement, thereby reducing distribution mismatch and avoiding blind imitation of noisy guidance. Finally, to support rigorous evaluation, we present ECR-Bench, an expert-calibrated rubric benchmark suite covering single-tool deep research and multi-tool travel planning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ARISE-RL consistently achieves robust and stable overall state-of-the-art performance across all evaluated benchmarks.

Rubric-based reinforcement learning decomposes open-ended instructions into prompt-specific, flexible rubrics, making it better suited than reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards for post-training LLMs on open-ended tasks. However, static rubrics are inevitably hacked as the policy evolves, and existing dynamic approaches introduce new problems: undirected rubric extraction, unreliable hack detection, and unbounded rubric proliferation. We propose $\textbf{CARE}$ ($\textbf{C}$ontrastive $\textbf{A}$nchor-based $\textbf{R}$ubric $\textbf{E}$volution), which grounds every rubric evolution step in a high-quality anchor response generated by a frontier model conditioned on the prompt and its rubrics. At each training step, CARE contrasts the highest-scoring rollout against the anchor, enabling two complementary mechanisms: an Adaptive branch that reactively repairs reward misspecification; and a Chase branch that proactively converts frontier-level quality gaps into sharper rubrics. Together, the two branches $\textbf{maintain discriminative accuracy in the high-reward region}$---the precise region where reward over-optimization mostly originates. Experiments on WildChecklist-9K with Qwen2.5-7B-Base and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct show that CARE achieves state-of-the-art performance on Arena-Hard-2.0, InfoBench, and FollowBench, and is the $\textbf{only}$ method whose win rate against GPT-4.1 anchor responses shows sustained improvement throughout 300 training steps; additional results on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen3-8B further indicate that CARE generalizes across model families.

Research planning is the decisive capability of AI scientists. Yet a research plan admits no verifiable answer, so reinforcement learning lacks the environment it requires: tasks paired with a critic. Rubrics extracted from scientific papers can supply the critic. Existing pipelines, however, draw the question and the criteria from the same content, so the reward can be earned by paraphrase. The rubric is further compressed into a single scalar per rollout. We introduce PaperGym, a unified framework that turns each research paper into a complete training environment. PaperGym exploits the structure of a paper: the question is synthesized from the research goal and background, while the criteria are derived from the method and experiments. The criteria span methodological innovation and experimental design, and criterion leakage falls to 3.7%, versus 11.90% to 34.10% in existing datasets. Training uses the rubric twice: first as privileged context for OPSD's self-teacher, then as the reward for GRPO. Across Qwen3-1.7B/4B/8B, this schedule outperforms supervised fine-tuning, either stage alone, and the reverse ordering, improving five-benchmark averages by +5.6, +5.0, and +4.8 points. With the recipe held fixed, models trained on PaperGym-20k win 58.1% of three-way comparisons, against 28.2% for RubricHub Science. The trained Qwen3-8B reaches 73.48 on ResearchQA, above the far larger Kimi K2.6. We release the pipeline, the 20,000-instance corpus PaperGym-20k, and the benchmarks PaperGym-Innov and PaperGym-Design.

Autonomous scientific research agents are increasingly applied to end-to-end scientific workflows, including literature review, data analysis, experimentation, and report generation. However, open-ended research tasks often do not clearly specify the analyses, methods, and success criteria required to complete the task. As a result, agents may miss important analyses, use inappropriate methods, or draw conclusions that are insufficiently supported by evidence. To address the problem, we present AutoSciRub, an evaluation-first framework that induces a task-specific executable rubric before research execution, and uses it to guide execution, criterion-level verification as well as iterative revision. AutoSciRub decomposes an underspecified instruction into atomic scientific goals, grounds them in relevant literature and task-visible data, and synthesizes specific, actionable, and verifiable criteria. The resulting rubric makes implicit experimental and evidential requirements explicit, providing guidance for experiments and analyses. During revision, rubric-guided verification identifies unmet criteria and enables targeted refinement of the research report and its supporting artifacts. On ResearchClawBench, AutoSciRub consistently improves all tested configurations, with an average gain of 2.08 points across three backbone LLMs under the fixed Codex harness and 2.95 points across three agent harnesses using a fixed DeepSeek-V4-Flash backbone. On a randomly sampled 20-task subset of AstaBench E2E Discovery, AutoSciRub further achieves an average improvement of 16.8 points across three agent harnesses, while maintaining or increasing the number of successfully completed tasks. These results demonstrate that evaluation-first guidance provides an effective and generalizable control mechanism for autonomous scientific research (Code: https://github.com/zjunlp/AutoSciRub).

Rubric-based reinforcement learning extends RL beyond tasks with exact answers or rule-based verifiers by scoring responses against instance-specific criteria. However, this makes reward computation expensive: training requires repeated rubric judging, often with proprietary APIs or local generative LLM judges with 7B parameters or more. We study whether smaller language models can serve as efficient and reliable rubric-based judges. To make this question measurable, we construct PointRubric and RaR-Science-Static, two pointwise rubric-based evaluation datasets with instance-specific criteria and itemwise satisfaction labels. We compare three ways of extracting criterion-level judgments from small models: Generative verdicts, Yes/No Logprob margins, and Probe judges. Across both datasets, the Qwen3-1.7B Probe judge achieves the strongest criterion-level agreement among these methods, outperforming Generative and Logprob judges. Used as a GRPO reward model, it trains a policy from 0.232 to 0.643 on RaR-Science rubric score, compared with 0.594 for an 8B Generative judge baseline, while the baseline requires 10.7$\times$ more reward-judge time. Task and domain transfer experiments further suggest that Probe judges preserve criterion-level reward structure across settings.

Large language models are increasingly used as scalable evaluators for open-ended tasks. However, many LLM judges derive query-specific criteria during scoring, leaving the evaluation requirements insufficiently specified and their coverage difficult to audit. Query-specific rubrics make these requirements explicit, but expert-written rubrics are costly to construct, while existing automatic methods typically rely on inference-time refinement or external supervision. We introduce GenRubric, a self-evolving framework that improves rubric generation from unlabeled queries without requiring additional human annotations during self-evolution. Our approach is based on rubric-induced self-consistency: independently sampled rubrics for the same query provide partial views of its latent evaluation requirements, and a comprehensive rubric should induce a response that generalizes across these complementary evaluation views. We implement this principle through reinforcement learning, combining a cross-rubric comprehensiveness signal with group-level and criterion-level rewards for rubric quality. We train GenRubric models at 4B, 8B, and 14B scales across multiple domains. Experiments on human-annotated rubric benchmarks show that self-evolution improves the agreement between evaluations induced by generated rubrics and those induced by expert-written rubrics. The improvements further generalize to held-out domains, demonstrating the potential of self-evolving rubric generation for scalable and query-specific LLM evaluation. Code and models are publicly available at https://github.com/foggpoy/GenRubric.

Interactive web application generation requires models to produce usable HTML, CSS, and JavaScript applications from natural language requests. Unlike conventional code generation, application quality depends on multiple user-facing functional requirements, each often tied to localized code regions such as event handlers, state updates, DOM fragments, or CSS selectors. Standard GRPO collapses these structured outcomes into a single sequence-level reward and applies the resulting advantage uniformly to all tokens, weakening credit assignment. We propose \textbf{Rubric-to-Code Credit Assignment} (RCCA), a reinforcement learning framework that converts rubric-level functional feedback into localized optimization signals over generated code. RCCA builds training tasks around explicit functional rubrics, uses a hierarchical reward to separate format, source-code, runtime, and functional failures, and aligns evaluator-generated textual attributions with responsible code spans and generated tokens. The resulting model, \textbf{Ling-RCCA-Flash}, scores 41.25 on MiniAppBench, improving Ling-3.0-Flash by 32.20 points and slightly surpassing Claude Opus 4.5. It also reaches 76.19 on ArtifactsBench, improving the SFT model by 4.48 points and establishing a new top score under the official ArtifactsBench leaderboard setting by surpassing the GPT-5 score by 3.64 points, suggesting transferable implementation-level gains.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has become the dominant paradigm for aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences. However, traditional RLHF relies on scalar reward signals that lack interpretability and fail to capture the multifaceted nature of response quality. Rubric-guided reinforcement learning addresses these limitations by introducing structured, interpretable evaluation criteria, or rubrics, as the backbone of reward design, feedback generation, and policy optimization. In this survey, we introduce a Bayesian framework that defines constitutions as prior distributions $P(R)$ over evaluation criteria and rubrics as conditional instantiations $R_x \sim P(R|x)$. Under this unified view, we present a taxonomy of rubric-guided RL along the prior-posterior axis, covering constitutional AI, instance-specific rubrics, process-level supervision, self-evolving rubrics, and their agentic and multimodal extensions. Furthermore, as rubrics are natural-language artifacts, we present a linguistic analysis of how granularity trade-offs, semantic drift, and linguistic reward hacking impact alignment reliability, identifying key open problems for future research.

Rubrics aim to make language-model evaluation transparent by decomposing response quality into interpretable criteria. However, natural-language rubrics are often ambiguous, require LLM judges, and typically assume criteria aggregated through linear weighted sums, limiting their ability to capture dependencies, alternatives, penalties, and override conditions. We propose ExecRubrics, a framework for representing rubrics as compact executable programs. ExecRubrics encodes evaluation logic as verifiable Python scoring functions, giving natural-language rubric intent an operational semantics: a fixed decision procedure that can be inspected, executed, and edited. On three long-form response benchmarks -- HealthBench, HelpSteer, and ArgQuality -- we show that ExecRubrics can recover substantial preference signal without an LLM judge at evaluation time. On ArgQuality and HelpSteer, the strongest executable variants are within 1.1 and 4 percentage points, respectively, of the direct GPT-5.5 agentic baseline. Executable rubrics are also considerably faster, achieving a 192x average speedup. We show that incorporating external logic and resources from text processing libraries such as NLTK and spaCy can further improve preference accuracy. Our results suggest a novel way of approaching automated evaluation, by offering a faster, more explainable, and less ambiguous alternative to black-box rubric evals, particularly in high-stakes domains such as healthcare and banking where precision and auditability are critical.

Rubric-based evaluators commonly treat rubrics as prompt context or flat criteria: they specify what to judge but leave criterion composition implicit, even when natural-language rules state it. We introduce Graph-Structured Rubrics (GSR), which compiles a rubric into a response-independent typed evaluation graph before observing responses. Criterion nodes elicit judgments; transformation, reduction, and gating operators compose them through named ports; and a task-specific output mapping, termed Readout, converts the unique sink into a score or preference. Compilation rejects malformed or type-incompatible graphs. Pointwise evaluation judges rubric dimensions separately before graph aggregation; pairwise evaluation reuses the graph with one judgment for each candidate under every criterion. Under GPT-OSS-120B, GSR improves exact score agreement by 0.62--6.75 percentage points over Prometheus-style scoring on four pointwise datasets and achieves the numerically highest end-to-end pairwise accuracy on two preference benchmarks under native tie and abstention policies.

Reinforcement learning against rubrics, lists of criteria graded by an LLM judge, has become a standard way to post-train language models on tasks with no deterministic answer. The rubric, however, is a fixed proxy for quality, never a complete description of it, and a policy trained against it long enough will learn to exploit the difference. We measure this directly. Training Qwen3-8B with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) on medical and science rubrics and grading out-of-distribution (OOD) benchmarks with both the training judge and a stronger gold judge, we find that the two scores diverge during training. The training judge's score keeps climbing while the gold judge's score peaks and then falls, by 3 points on HealthBench-Hard and by 22 points on ResearchQA. A judge with a fixed bias would shift the gold curve by a constant, not send it down while the training score rises, so the divergence is reward hacking, not judge noise. We propose Rubric Dropout, a one-line fix borrowed from neuron dropout. At every step, we randomly drop a subset of the rubric's criteria before computing the reward, so the policy never optimizes the same rubric twice. The dropped subset is shared across each rollout group, so GRPO's group-relative advantages stay comparable, and evaluation always uses the full rubric. Comparing no dropout against dropout at 30% and 50% on both benchmark pairs, dropout raises the OOD gold score at every matched checkpoint (+1 to +2 points on HealthBench-Hard, +6 to +7 points on ResearchQA), lowers the two hacking measures we track, and costs nothing in domain. Sweeping the dropout fraction shows a broad 30-50% sweet spot, while the natural alternative, reweighting criteria by how useful they are to training, performs worse than no intervention at all in our setting.

Aligning Large Language Models (LLMs) for open-ended tasks is challenging because responses must satisfy multidimensional criteria without following a single correct generation trajectory. Existing rubric-based reinforcement learning (RL) methods compress fine-grained criterion-level feedback into scalar rewards, making persistent capability gaps difficult to target under limited on-policy exploration. We propose $\textbf{RISE-RL}$ (Rubric-Informed Selective Exploration), which uses repeatedly missed rubric criteria to elicit privileged trajectories that are difficult to discover through unguided exploration alone. RISE-RL retains only trajectories whose complete-rubric reward exceeds the mean reward of natural rollouts, and then re-evaluates them under the original prompt to emphasize behaviors that remain weakly supported by the natural policy. The resulting guidance signal is optimized through a separate auxiliary objective and removed once its additional benefit diminishes. Experiments with 4B and 14B models across writing, chat, health, and science show that RISE-RL achieves the highest mean score on every evaluated benchmark under guidance-free evaluation. Compared with standard Rubric-RL, it improves the average score by 1.3 points at the 4B scale and $\textbf{3.3 points at the 14B scale}$, including a $\textbf{6.0-point}$ gain on CreativeWriting-V3. It also improves creative-writing diversity and yields gains on objectively scored medical and scientific benchmarks. These results indicate that selective internalization through reward filtering and policy support shaping is effective for open-ended reinforcement learning.

AI video generation has advanced rapidly and entered widespread commercial use. As a result, quality differences among videos produced by state-of-the-art AI video generation models~(AIVGMs) have become increasingly difficult to discern using conventional evaluation criteria, such as visual fidelity and semantic instruction following. Meanwhile, human evaluation now requires more expertise and sustained attention, substantially increasing annotation costs. This calls for automated evaluation that can reliably distinguish fine-grained differences among advanced AIVGMs with minimal human intervention. To address this challenge, we present RAVEN-Eval, a rubric-guided automated evaluation framework for AIVGMs, built primarily on the LMM-as-a-judge paradigm. Through an automatic task curation and quality-filtering pipeline, RAVEN-Eval curates 150 text-to-video~(T2V) tasks and 100 image-to-video~(I2V) tasks, and systematically collects more than 4,500 AIGVs. At its core, RAVEN-Eval adopts rubric-guided automated LMM preference judgement, in which LMM judges conduct pairwise comparisons according to task-specific rubrics. It further introduces an anchor-based model insertion approach to reduce the evaluation cost of incorporating new models. Finally, we evaluate 20 high-performance AIVGMs, as well as the judging capabilities of 13 LMM judges, and establish the RAVEN-Eval Leaderboards. Overall, RAVEN-Eval paves a scalable path for automatic and trustworthy evaluation of rapidly evolving AIVGMs.

Frontier language models are trained using distinct data, objectives, and safety pipelines. Whether these differences produce measurably different behaviors under explicit steering pressure remains underexplored. This study evaluates behavioral steerability across six frontier models from six developers using 300 paired base and steered items over three categories: values-conflict, reasoning-elicitation, and reasoning-suppression (plus 40 validation items). All six models act as blind peer judges and classify every response based on fixed behavioral rubrics. The resulting 24,480 judgments are scored by leave-one-out consensus. We find that models differ not just in how much steering shifts their behavior but in what kind (mode) of response they give, and some response modes appear in only one or two of them. GPT-5 deflects requests to disclose its reasoning while leaving its answer intact (99% vs. 0% for all other models). Claude Opus 4.7 and GPT-5 resist explicit suppression instructions and in different ways. Using Llama as the open-weight model, we trace the largest behavioral split to its internals. A linear probe decodes the behavior from the residual stream at 0.87 held-out accuracy while injecting that direction during generation drives the behavior from 0% to 86% across an intervention sweep. Every finding holds under both a token-budget remediation and a control experiment with a hypothesis-blind judgment prompt.

Real-world multimodal instructions often bundle multiple requirements with unequal importance, yet most multimodal training data still reduce instruction following to answering one self-contained question. We study this gap through rubric comprehension, which casts the model not as a generator measured against rubrics but as an executor that follows them: given an image and a typed, prioritized rubric, the model must verify each rule before producing an overall judgment. To support this setting, we propose PRISM, a four-stage data synthesis framework that produces persona--task pairs, prefix-guided rule sets, quality-filtered rubrics, and structured verification traces. We further introduce PRISM-Eval, whose Loose and Strict metrics use deterministic matching against fixed labels and therefore require no inference-time judge model. With only 10K synthesized samples, PRISM lifts Qwen3-VL-4B from 9.5% to 30.1% Strict accuracy on PRISM-Eval while preserving average performance on general benchmarks, and the gains transfer to four additional open-source MLLMs across dense and MoE architectures, suggesting that structured rubric supervision is a scalable path toward multi-rule, priority-aware multimodal instruction following.

Reusable skills, which encapsulate the procedural knowledge required to solve real-world professional tasks, offer LLM-based agents a path toward self-evolution in expert domains. Existing self-evolving skill methods construct skills internally from the model's parametric knowledge or trajectories, and are therefore bounded by what the model already knows. However, the domain conventions and standard procedures underlying professional skills often lie beyond this boundary and are hard to elicit from the agent alone. To address this issue, we therefore propose a novel framework, Search2Skill, that automatically identifies the agent's capability gaps, searches external sources to address them, and distills the retrieved evidence into structured, reusable skills. Specifically, Search2Skill is optimized by a rubric-based reinforcement learning scheme that jointly improves when to search, how to search, and how to generate skills. Experiments on eight expert-level domains from three benchmarks show that Search2Skill consistently outperforms both search-augmented and trajectory-based skill-learning baselines under both streaming and held-out evaluation protocols. Further analyses show that the gains arise from skill abstraction rather than raw retrieved evidence, and that the acquired skills transfer across model scales.

Memory is essential as language agents move from isolated tasks to long-horizon, stateful workflows, yet existing evaluations often reduce it to retrieval or question answering. We introduce ContextWeave, a longitudinal benchmark that evaluates whether recalled experience improves downstream agent performance in realistic office-work streams. ContextWeave reconstructs privacy-preserved, multi-month workflows of 14 participants into 1,005 executable tasks, including 568 core evaluation tasks, with instructions, containerized environments, trajectories, and task-specific rubrics. It measures workspace quality and alignment with participant-specific preferences, complemented by diagnostics of relevance, continuity, solvability, and robustness to misleading recall. Across six memory components under a fixed model, the strongest configuration raises Workspace Score from 68.08 to 78.20 and Preference Score from 41.50 to 70.60. With a fixed memory component, recall improves both outcomes for all five tested base models, although gains vary substantially. Our analysis shows that actionable, experience-rich memory supports workflow continuation and reduces redundant exploration more effectively than compact summaries, while it can also be more susceptible to misleading recall. These findings motivate memory systems that optimize not only retrieval relevance but also reliable use during execution.

Frontier LLMs are increasingly put to use on open-ended complex questions, different in nature from the ones they are typically evaluated on. We dedicate more than 4,000 human expert hours to evaluate a selection of six frontier LLMs on a member of this class of problems: EuroExec, our introduced human expert-based benchmark composed of 413 open-ended long-form European executive tasks authored by 47 vetted domain experts, each question drawn from experience in a real case. Every response is manually evaluated through a multi-attribute rubric, an item-specific checklist of requirements, and a preference rank ordering, extracting an aggregate metric "Solve Rate". The strongest model solves only 56.9% of tasks, while expert-written reference answers judged blindly are solved at near-ceiling levels and are preferred over every model response in 74% of direct rankings, placing frontier generative systems well below the professional standard of work they are already used for. We see that the best way to extract this kind of conclusion is by employing human evaluators, carefully checking their consistency through rigorous statistical analysis, and observe that automatic measurements also fall short when evaluating on this case of real-world open-ended problems with a subjective ground truth.

Evaluating financial AI agents requires criteria aligned with real professional work. Existing rubric methods typically derive criteria from task prompts or model outputs, overlooking tacit standards visible only in practitioner deliverables. We introduce FinProBench, a benchmark for professional financial tasks, and Role-Grounded Rubric Construction (RGRC), a reusable pipeline that derives rubrics from deliverables produced by practitioners in the same role. RGRC comprises four stages: Deliverable Collection, Competency Extraction, Rubric Synthesis, and Validation. Its rubrics capture tacit standards, distinguish quality levels, and transfer across tasks within a role. Before analysis, we classified 57 occupations by deliverable genre into 30 prior-rich conventional roles and 27 prior-sparse role-specialized roles. Across all roles, Prompt-only nearly matches RGRC for conventional roles (89.2% vs. 90.7%), but RGRC substantially outperforms it for role-specialized roles (99.1% vs. 78.0%). This split indicates that prompt engineering can approximate rubrics when conventions are well represented in model priors, while professional grounding is essential for standards beyond those priors. FinProBench is built from 1,723 curated deliverables spanning 57 occupations, 8 financial sub-industries, and 161 deliverable types, and releases an initial evaluation set of 20 complete tasks covering 20 roles in 7 sub-industries. With heterogeneous LLM judges and role-level rubrics, human deliverables rank first on average (73.7 vs. 70.3, 70.2, and 69.6 out of 100), while all four systems show overlapping 95% confidence intervals and complementary strengths. Reusing rubrics at the role level reduces estimated per-task construction effort by 6.7 times relative to authoring each rubric from scratch.

Retrieval systems help deep research agents generate high-quality answers by providing relevant documents. However, existing retrievers typically select documents through relevance matching, while individually well-matched top-$k$ documents may not form a \textit{set} that satisfies the complex information needs of an agent query (\eg, diverse, concise and authoritative documents). In this paper, we propose search-oriented rubrics that \textit{explicitly} define the requirements that high-quality document sets should satisfy for each agent query. Our search rubrics are organized into a hierarchical structure and synthesized using a powerful LLM. Based on these search rubrics, we further train a document reranker \textbf{RubricRanker} to select a high-quality subset from retrieved documents. We design a two-stage training framework that consists of rubrics-guided supervised fine-tuning and rubric-based reinforcement learning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that RubricRanker outperforms the strongest baseline by 2.6 points on four deep research benchmarks and generalizes well to five RAG benchmarks.

On-policy self-distillation (OPSD), where a single model acts as both student and teacher with different contexts, has shown promise in verifiable domains like math, where hard privileged information (PI) in the form of ground-truth answers structurally constrains valid continuations. We extend OPSD to open-ended generation using soft PI in the form of rubrics that guide preferences but admit many valid responses. Rubrics have served as scalar rewards for reinforcement learning (RL); we show that they provide substantially richer signal as dense PI for distillation, and contrary to intuition, soft rubric PI provides a larger and more effective training signal on student roll-outs than hard reference completion PI in this regime. A reference completion is one point in a set of valid responses, so distilling towards it over-constrains the student, while rubrics specify the preference structure shared across the set of valid responses. We show the effectiveness of using rubrics as PI for open-ended generation across Qwen and Llama model families and show that it outperforms rubric-as-reward (RaR) RL using HealthBench, a benchmark that grades open-ended health responses against physician-created rubrics, providing dense token-level supervision for open-ended tasks; RuPI beats RaR RL by up to +0.10 absolute score and, under matched recipe and KL direction, beats reference-PI by +0.034 to +0.079 absolute score across three models. We further show that these findings generalize to training on the RubricHub Science corpus and evaluating on ResearchQA: soft rubric PI outperforms both reference-PI distillation and RaR RL (66.6% vs. 64.2% and 57.6%).

Audio reasoning is essential for machine understanding of the acoustic world. Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards can elicit such reasoning, yet existing reward designs are complementary in their limitations: outcome-based rewards supervise only the final answer and let the model reach it without attending to the audio, whereas process-based rewards score the reasoning itself but rely on coarse, hand-crafted, and fixed criteria that neither adapt to each question nor stay grounded in the acoustic evidence. Moreover, questions differ in what they demand, with some hinging on perception and others on multi-step reasoning, and any static criterion weakens as the policy improves. Supervising the reasoning process with fine-grained, audio-grounded, and adaptive rewards is therefore crucial, yet challenging since such rewards are impractical to design by hand for every sample. To this end, we introduce AudioRubrics, a reinforcement learning framework that supervises audio reasoning with self-evolving, audio-grounded rubric rewards. AudioRubrics synthesizes per-sample rubrics from the raw waveform and, conditioned on the model's own rollouts, regenerates and reweights criteria per group, supplying a continuous learning signal that keeps targeting the current policy's weaknesses as static criteria saturate. Comprehensive evaluations across three audio reasoning benchmarks reveal that AudioRubrics substantially outperforms a wide range of open-source and training-based baselines. Furthermore, our analysis shows that the gains scale with the capability of the rubric generator and judge, and AudioRubrics converges to a stable reasoning length that avoids both degenerate collapse and unbounded growth. The improvement in audio perception further demonstrates the effectiveness of anchoring supervision in the acoustic evidence. Our project page is available at https://audiorubrics.github.io.

Rubric-based LLM-as-judge pipelines often assume that evaluation criteria provide independent signals. In practice, however, criteria can be behaviorally coupled: improving one criterion may systematically change scores on another, distorting aggregate scores used in model-release or product-update decisions. We introduce RADAR, a lightweight preflight diagnostic framework for estimating such coupling before large-scale evaluation. Given a rubric, RADAR generates targeted synthetic probes, scores each probe on all criteria, and produces a directional coupling matrix that shows which criteria co-score and how. We validate RADAR on three industry-relevant evaluation settings: NVIDIA HelpSteer2, SumPubMed, and the Yale-Salesforce SummEval benchmark. Using only a small number of probes per criterion, RADAR recovers human inter-criterion correlation structure (Pearson r > 0.84) and provides practitioners with concrete audit signals about redundancy, hierarchy, and aggregation sensitivity before committing to large-scale judging.

Reinforcement learning (RL) for document parsing often relies on reference-based rewards rooted in edit distance (e.g., tree edit distance), yet it remains hard to optimize in the high-accuracy regime because such rewards become weakly discriminative: near-correct outputs receive very similar scores, providing limited learning signal for hard cases. We propose Step-Aware Annealing (SAA), a plug-and-play reward sharpening mechanism that progressively increases reward curvature during training, amplifying subtle quality differences among high-scoring samples while preserving stability in early learning. Built on SAA, we introduce DocPO, a document policy optimization framework with element-specific, reference-based rewards anchored by edit-distance signals: normalized string edit distance (NED) for text, tree edit distance similarity (TEDS) for tables, and a hybrid Rubric+edit reward for formulas. Experiments on OmniDocBench and DocElemHard show that SAA consistently improves GRPO-style RL across document elements over non-annealed rewards, without requiring additional human supervision for reward construction.

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.

Automatic speech recognition (ASR) has achieved substantial gains in transcription accuracy, yet verbatim transcription does not necessarily produce readily usable text. It retains fillers, repetitions, false starts, and self-corrections that increase reading effort, obscure the speaker's final intent, and propagate unresolved or abandoned content to downstream tasks. Existing spoken-to-written methods process completed audio or transcripts but cannot revise emitted text when later speech changes how preceding content should be interpreted. We therefore formulate Agentic Speech Recognition (AgenticSR), an audio-to-clean-text task that removes disfluencies, resolves self-corrections, and normalizes written form while preserving the speaker's final intent. AgenticASR implements this task through an ASR--Refiner architecture that repeatedly transforms a bounded active context and replaces its corresponding output span as audio arrives. This enables continual emission and revision over streams of arbitrary duration. We also introduce AASR-Bench, a bilingual benchmark with fine-grained atomic rubrics. Across multiple ASR front ends, AgenticASR attains the highest AASR-Bench scores among evaluated systems. A human--AI agreement study shows that rubric-based judgments align with independent expert assessments. Ablations characterize Refiner capacity, context length, and the quality--latency trade-off between online and offline inference. Together, these results establish AgenticASR as a practical framework for intent-preserving clean transcription during ongoing speech. Code, AASR-Bench, and a demo will be released at https://github.com/AnXMuy/AgenticASR.

LLM tutoring poses a measurement problem: can a general-purpose helpfulness rubric distinguish direct answer-giving from pedagogical guidance? We audit this signal in a pre-registered study. Within each of three tutor bases, we compare conversational and pedagogical policies instantiated with the same underlying model and paired with one fixed weak simulated student. Deterministic detectors measure answer leakage and next-turn independent work. Claude Opus 4.8 is the frozen, condition-blind primary judge. After the Opus scores were fixed, GPT-5.6 Sol was prospectively specified for a post hoc robustness audit of the same 1,179 confirmatory answer-phase tutor turns under the frozen helpfulness and pedagogy rubrics. On the primary base under Opus, the policies do not differ significantly in helpfulness but are perfectly rank-separated under the pedagogy rubric (Cliff's $|δ|{=}0.10$ vs. $1.0$). Across the two judges, pedagogy contrasts retain their direction where detected, whereas the helpfulness ordering is judge-contingent, reversing between judges on two of three bases. In an Opus-only ablation, seven primary-base policies span $2.3$ points in mean judged pedagogy within a $0.25$-point band of mean judged helpfulness. Separately, answer-revealing turns are followed by less independent student work on every base, a result that is judge-invariant by construction. In this controlled setting, general-purpose helpfulness is not a reliable pedagogy signal. Tutor evaluation should pair pedagogy-targeted rubrics with deterministic process measures.

Role-playing agents (RPAs) have become one of the most important consumer applications of large language models. Users engage in multi-turn conversations with RPAs for experiences such as emotional comfort, making reliable evaluation essential for measuring capability, comparing systems, and guiding further improvement. Existing benchmarks, however, typically require an RPA to continue a fixed dialogue history and then evaluate the continuation using a fixed rubric detached from the user. We identify and empirically demonstrate two limitations of this design. First, an RPA's output is shaped by the preceding dialogue history, preventing a scientifically grounded assessment of its role-playing ability in real multi-turn settings. Second, user experience varies substantially across individuals, and conventional fixed rubrics need not align with user satisfaction. We therefore introduce PALATE (Person-Aligned LLM-Simulated-User Assessment with Tailored Evaluation), a scalable RPA benchmark built on user simulators. PALATE is accompanied by a pool of 300 character profiles. Its main evaluation trains five per-user simulators and lets them engage candidate RPAs in free-form, multi-turn conversations over a pre-frozen panel of character profiles. Alongside a general quality rubric, we construct personalized rubrics to measure user satisfaction; on held-out annotated data, the personalized rubrics show higher agreement with human judgments than the general rubric. In the main evaluation of 16 candidates, PALATE separately characterizes generic turn quality, long-horizon session capability, and per-user experience on multi-turn trajectories co-constructed by each candidate. It thereby produces interpretable evaluations of specific user-RPA pairs rather than compressing systems into a single user-independent ranking.

Text-space optimization adapts large language models (LLMs) by editing external natural-language artifacts rather than model weights, so the optimized artifacts remain inspectable and the model can be treated as a black box. However, most existing text-space methods keep evaluation fixed. On open-ended tasks, this can become a bottleneck: once the solver improves on the criteria a rubric measures, omitted dimensions remain invisible to the optimization signal. Simply evolving the rubric is also unreliable when updates are selected by the current solver's score, because apparent progress can come from making the rubric easier to satisfy. We introduce DecoEvo (Decoupled Co-Evolution), which co-evolves a solver skill and a rubric-generator skill under decoupled objectives without using gold rubrics during optimization. The solver skill is updated using criterion-level feedback, while the rubric-generator skill is revised through complementary audits of requirement coverage and response discrimination that are independent of aggregate solver score. This separation focuses generator updates on newly exposed solver weaknesses, reducing repeated emphasis on criteria the solver already satisfies. Under each benchmark's official evaluation, DecoEvo outperforms all compared methods across five benchmarks and three LLM backbones, yielding 2.8--5.0% relative gains over SkillOpt in the five-benchmark average.

Rubric-based reinforcement learning enriches language model training by evaluating model outputs against explicit criteria. Yet in GRPO-style pipelines, these structured judgments are reduced to a scalar response-level reward and converted into a response-level advantage, which is broadcast uniformly to all generated tokens. This leaves no explicit mechanism for allocating credit within a response, even when different criteria are grounded in different spans, formatting decisions, or semantic choices. We propose CoRT, a token-level credit weighting method for rubric-conditioned GRPO. Instead of training an auxiliary token scoring model, CoRT uses counterfactual replay to rescore the same sampled response under the original rubric-conditioned prompt and a matched criteria-free prompt. The resulting tokenwise log-likelihood contrasts serve as a proxy for dependence on the rubric context. CoRT maps these contrasts to bounded, response-normalized weights and uses them to redistribute the signed GRPO advantage across tokens, without introducing an auxiliary scorer or changing the response-level reward. Experiments across instruction-tuned models and reward granularities show that CoRT improves over matched response-level GRPO in the vast majority of comparisons, with an average gain of 4.4 percentage points. The method remains competitive with learned token-level credit baselines while avoiding a separate relevance-learning stage. These results suggest that policy-internal counterfactual likelihood contrasts provide an effective training signal for within-response credit allocation while retaining the simplicity and stability of GRPO.

Post-training with evaluator feedback on policy-induced samples serves as a major mechanism for improving large language models. As policies improve, these sampled responses become close in quality. These close candidates create a bottleneck for policy optimization: collapsed relative evaluator score gaps yield weak or misleading policy supervision. We theoretically characterize why these gaps matter through a probability allocation view, showing that the directional gain of shifting probability mass from one response to another is exactly the evaluator score gap between them. This identifies relative score gaps as the policy optimization signals that guide updates. Motivated by this view, we propose DynamicRubric, a response-set-conditioned evaluator--policy co-evolution framework that generates weighted binary rubric items for each candidate set and aggregates the resulting judgments into response-level scores. In our experiments with 8B backbones, DynamicRubric improves evaluator performance and provides stronger policy supervision than baselines using a 70B reward model or a 235B static rubric generator. DynamicRubric-optimized policies also show gains on verifiable reasoning and coding tasks. A DynamicRubric-optimized model is fully deployed in WeChat Search's AI answering scenario, where it serves all online traffic across tens of millions of requests per day and improves key online metrics. These results suggest a principle for evaluator-guided post-training: evaluators should evolve with the policies they supervise.

As large language models and AI agents become the primary consumers of search results, document set quality determines the upper bound of downstream generation. Yet existing evaluation systems remain confined to scoring documents independently and aggregating via nDCG, ignoring inter-document interactions (redundancy, conflict, complementarity) and unable to answer what makes one document set better than another. To address these issues, we propose a complete evaluate-diagnose-optimize framework. We design SetwiseEvalKit, a three-level, nine-dimension document set evaluation benchmark covering both short-form and long-form scenarios, comprising approximately 28K high-quality evaluation rubrics. We systematically evaluate 12 rerankers: even the best method achieves no more than 45% coverage, cross-document coordination dimensions are universally weak, and no single method maintains top performance across both settings. Building on this, we propose Rubric4Setwise, a training-free method that converts rubric-based evaluation criteria into document set selection signals, achieving the best downstream generation performance with fewer documents and search rounds. It is the only method that maintains state-of-the-art results across both scenarios, validating the effectiveness of closing the loop from evaluation to optimization.

Rubric-based evaluation of open-ended generation faces a fundamental tension between expressiveness and reliability. Authoring a faithful rubric requires expressing the structure of the space of good answers: open-ended sets of acceptable options, ordered processes, and the relative importance of facts. Grading with the rubric requires a judge to score consistently, and judges are far more reliable on flat, binary checks than on rich structure. We resolve this tension with a two-level meta-rubric framework. A structured meta-rubric captures the grading criteria at authoring time, and fixed mechanical rules compile it into a flat checklist of binary, machine-gradable checks that an LLM judge scores reliably at evaluation time. We instantiate the framework as Gamut (Grounded Assessment of Multimodal Factuality), a benchmark for factual completeness in long-form generation. Gamut comprises 1,813 questions grounded in real wearable imagery across 10 diverse domains, each paired with an evidence-backed rubric verified by expert human annotators. Evaluating 14 frontier and open-weight models, we find Gamut genuinely challenging (best score 58.7% from Gemini 3.1 Pro), highly discriminative, and robust to the choice of judge.

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely applied to automated essay scoring (AES) and automated feedback generation (AFG). However, existing studies rely primarily on prompt engineering or supervised fine-tuning, while systematic research on reinforcement learning (RL) post-training and automated evaluation of feedback quality remains limited. We propose RLAES, a unified LLM framework that jointly optimizes essay scoring and feedback generation through RL. To make feedback quality measurable, interpretable, and usable for training, we introduce Rubric-based Feedback Evaluation (RFE), an essay-grounded feedback evaluation framework comprising 166 fine-grained binary rubric items and an LLM-as-judge. Building on RFE, we propose Adaptive Gated Feedback Optimization (AGFO), which activates rubric-based feedback rewards on demand during RL, reducing evaluation overhead while improving feedback quality. We also propose Adjacent Contrastive Reasoning (ACR) to improve ordinal score calibration by explicitly contrasting adjacent score levels. Experimental results show that the RFE framework captures essay-feedback consistency, exhibits strong pairwise discriminative power, and closely aligns with expert preferences. On the ASAP benchmark, RLAES-AGFO achieves the best scoring performance among LLM-based methods (QWK = 0.803), while maintaining feedback quality comparable to GPT-5.5 and avoiding the feedback degradation observed under score-only RL. Code and datasets are publicly available at https://github.com/hellomuyi/RLAES.

Rubric-based RL has recently shown promise in improving LLMs on open-ended tasks. A widely recognized limitation of rubric-based RL is limited exploration: criteria that no rollout manages to satisfy (Unexplored Criteria, UC) receive no optimization signal. Recent methods address this by incorporating rubric information as external guidance during rollout, yet they introduce a train-inference mismatch: the policy is optimized on rollouts produced under external guidance while this guidance is absent at inference time, causing error accumulation through autoregressive decoding. Moreover, these exploration-focused approaches overlook a fundamentally different failure mode that we term Suppressed Criteria (SC) -- criteria that are satisfied by some rollouts yet whose learning signals are lost during optimization because scalar reward aggregation assigns them non-positive aggregate advantages. Our analysis reveals that SC are remarkably prevalent: over 57% of samples exhibit this failure mode throughout training, with an average of 1.8 SC per sample. To simultaneously address both UC and SC without introducing training-inference mismatch, we propose Criterion-Distilled Policy Optimization (CriPO), which enhances rubric-based RL via on-policy self-distillation. For UC, CriPO constructs a criterion-injection self-teacher and computes a localized forward-KL loss to inject missing behaviors into the policy. For SC, CriPO employs a counterfactual self-teacher to locate criterion-relevant tokens in negative-advantage rollouts and flips their token-level advantages to positive values, preserving useful patterns that would otherwise be suppressed. Experiments on medicine and science benchmarks demonstrate that CriPO consistently outperforms rubric-based RL, achieving stronger final performance with approximately $2\times$ fewer optimization steps.

Evaluations should do more than measure a models current performance. They should tell us what to fix for the next model iteration and provide a way to generate targeted post training data. Most evaluation pipelines identify weak examples, topics, or categories, but they leave the underlying capability failure implicit: they say where a model fails, not why. We introduce CRAFT, a method that converts any rubric based evaluation dataset into a model specific diagnosis of weak capabilities. CRAFT treats each grading criterion as a capability probe: it extracts a capability description from every prompt rubric pair, clusters these descriptions into a hierarchical capability tree, scores the target model at every node, and selects low performing nodes dynamically across tree levels, at the granularity where each failure is clearest. The selected weak capabilities then direct the generation of targeted supervised finetuning data. Holding the data generation, finetuning, and evaluation setup fixed, we compare CRAFT against prompt level EvalTree clustering and untargeted random generation on four open source models, two professional domains (finance and legal), and 13 held out benchmarks disjoint from the diagnostic data. CRAFT achieves the strongest finance domain average for all four models under repeated temperature decoding; on legal domain, it is strongest for three of four models and remains within the decoding variance bands of the best baseline on the fourth. Diagnosing weaknesses at the level of rubric criteria, rather than prompts or categories, thus yields both a sharper picture of what a model cannot do and measurably better models after finetuning on that diagnosis.

Rubrics provide structured, fine-grained signals for training and evaluating large language models (LLMs). Yet reliable query-specific rubrics are difficult to construct. Existing approaches often derive supervision from human-written rubrics, preference data, or sampled responses. Direct query-to-rubric generation avoids these resources, but provides no explicit check that a plausible rubric is useful. Such a rubric may fail to distinguish answer quality, reward an optional style, or penalize a valid alternative strategy. We introduce Rubrics on Trial, a query-only framework that evolves a rubric set from an empty set without external annotations or model training. It derives supervision solely from synthetic rubric-conditioned response pairs and validates each proposed rubric before adding it, screening out non-discriminative, over-specific, and style-only candidate rubrics. Experiments across five preference benchmark suites demonstrate the effectiveness of Rubrics on Trial, which achieves the best average accuracy and leads on six of seven evaluation sets.

Evaluations (Evals) are a deployment bottleneck for real-world AI applications: public benchmarks rarely match a team's users, context, or policies, and human review is often tedious to scale. Motivated by our work with AI applications in the public sector, this project addresses recurring evaluation challenges encountered when applications must satisfy local policy and governance requirements. We present Kaleidoscope, an integrated workflow for contextual functional evaluation that links persona-based test generation, contextualized rubrics, and human review for reliability-gated automated scoring. Generated test cases are scored against application-specific rubrics; human annotations provide reviewable labels; and LLM judges automate scoring only when their agreement with those labels meets a configured threshold. Kaleidoscope is therefore a practical, inspectable, iterative workflow for product teams. We report early evidence from a three-week pilot across four organizational use cases and custom-rubric judge experiments on 108 annotated Q&A pairs spanning four domains and 14 evaluation dimensions. The results highlight useful features for end-to-end reliable, automated scoring.

Payment integration is a demanding repository-level software task: agents must select a suitable product, implement coordinated client-server flows, verify payment outcomes, and preserve consistency between transaction and business states. We introduce Alipay-PIBench, a benchmark for evaluating coding agents on realistic Alipay payment integration. It contains nine product-specific projects and 18 task instances, each organized into Basic functional-completion and Advanced risk-aware hardening scenarios. Scenario-specific rubrics support deterministic static, unit, integration, and end-to-end checks, supplemented by LLM-assisted assessment for semantic requirements. We evaluate six coding-agent models and report rubric pass rate (RPR). Under the with-skill condition, mean RPR ranges from 68.58% to 91.37%. Access to the alipay-payment-integration skill improves mean RPR by 10.31 percentage points on average relative to the without-skill condition, with gains varying across models, products, and scenarios. Method-level results distinguish source-level completion, executable payment behavior, and payment-domain requirements. Alipay-PIBench provides a controlled setting for diagnosing model capability and evaluating structured guidance in payment integration.

This paper presents Earthquaker-AI, a hybrid educational framework building upon a previously implemented educational robotics project by integrating a conversational AI assistant based on Retrieval-Augmented Generation. It aims to enhance earthquake preparedness and conscious action among primary-school students. The system extends the award-winning STEM project Earthquaker moving from mechanical simulation with Lego WeDo2 to cognitive and metacognitive processing. The robotics component uses Lego WeDo2 automation to simulate seismic response, letting students interact with sensors and actuators as tangible representations of protective actions. The assistant operates as a guided learning mechanism aligning student responses with safety guidelines, while providing rubric-based verbal feedback that supports self-regulated learning and calmness under emergency conditions. Earthquaker-AI follows a progressive learning trajectory aligned with cognitive development. In early grades, the focus is on basic recognition of safety actions through multiple-choice questions, assessed via a two-dimensional rubric. In middle grades, students identify correct action sequences through multiple-choice questions, evaluated via a three-axis rubric. In upper grades, the approach shifts to verbal production, requiring short written responses assessed via a four-dimensional rubric that includes clarity of expression. The dialogic module uses RAG to match student queries semantically with official guidelines, generating safe, accurate responses. Experimental evaluation shows high groundedness and accuracy, with a low hallucination rate. Overall, Earthquaker-AI combines hands-on engagement, information processing, and reflective practice. Combining robotics, rubrics, and AI promotes technological literacy, self-regulation, and responsible use of digital systems, contributing to early crisis-management skills.

Automated essay scoring (AES) research has largely focused on cross-prompt generalization, where essays from unseen prompts are scored while the scoring criteria are typically held constant. In practice, however, educators may revise or even introduce new rubrics in their scoring task, to evaluate different aspects of essays. We study cross-rubric generalization: training on essays labeled under one set of rubrics and evaluating on previously unseen rubrics, which target different aspects of the essay. We use a Large Language Model (LLM) fine-tuning framework with two components: rubric-agnostic intermediate representations, called traits, and target-essay supervision under seen rubrics during training. On an AES dataset augmented with multiple rubric-defined labels of student critical thinking skills, we find that traits improve macro F1 by 5.0% over a baseline without traits in the hardest setting, where both target rubrics and target essays are unseen during training. We further find that increasing target-essay supervision improves performance, with our best fine-tuned open-source Llama-based model outperforming GPT-5-mini prompting by 2.1% macro F1 and trailing GPT-5 by 1.9%. These results show that trait-based intermediate structure and controlled supervision improve generalization to unseen rubrics.

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.

Deep research agents are increasingly used to produce long-form financial reports, yet large-scale evaluation remains bottlenecked by the need for human experts to define and execute high-quality rubrics. We address this problem by proposing a scalable pipeline for generating high-quality rubrics without human experts in the final loop. We build a financial deep research benchmark from 104 real-world user queries and automatically synthesize 14,450 query-specific candidate rubrics from model-generated reports. To justify removing human experts from rubric execution, we compare rubric judgments from three human experts with those from a three-LLM judge panel on a sampled subset, and show that LLM-based evaluation is sufficiently consistent with human evaluation to replace it for large-scale rubric screening, including 98.67% label-level agreement on jointly unanimous items. We then derive consensus-derived gold rubrics through two filters: a strict consistency filter, which keeps a rubric only if the three LLM judges unanimously agree on every report under the same query, and a distinguishability filter, which keeps a rubric only if it assigns at least one majority-yes and at least one majority-no label across the evaluated systems. This process retains 3,687 consistency-passed rubrics, of which 2,600 remain distinguishable and form the final set of consensus-derived gold rubrics. Using this final rubric set, we obtain clearly differentiated rankings across 10 deep research systems, with item-level pass rates ranging from 58.58% to 22.23%. More broadly, because the pipeline removes human-expert execution from rubric generation and evaluation, it is naturally scalable for benchmark evaluation, automatic system comparison, and future studies of evaluation-driven system improvement.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for clinical decision support, but their reliability in complex oncology treatment planning remains unclear. We evaluated agentic LLM systems for breast cancer treatment recommendation generation using 72 real clinical cases across stages I to IV and 1,147 case-specific rubrics generated through Asymmetric Information Rubric Generation (AIRG), in which the rubric generator had access to real clinical decisions unavailable to the evaluated models. Seven pipelines were compared, including single-LLM baselines, tool-augmented systems, and multi-agent architectures with fact checking and autonomous subagent spawning. The best-performing configuration, Claude Opus 4.8 with the D&C+SA pipeline, achieved a global score of 0.594 $\pm$ 0.025. Tool use and increased agent autonomy had mixed effects, improving performance in some settings but degrading it in others. Performance varied by clinical domain and disease stage, and oncologist-led error analysis revealed persistent clinically relevant failures, including incorrect or missing recommendations, flawed justifications, citation errors, outdated claims, and overconfidence. These findings suggest that agentic LLM systems can generate clinically relevant breast cancer recommendations, but remain insufficient for unsupervised clinical use.

Full-proof autoformalization bridges extensive mathematical proofs in natural language with formally validated reasoning, offering a pathway to elevate the ceiling of verifiable mathematical reasoning. Unlike statement-level formalization, proof autoformalization is a long-horizon challenge requiring coordination of claims, contexts, and dependencies across many proof steps, yet has only recently come under focused study. Current approaches either rely on costly model training or apply excessive, unguided repair at inference time. To this end, we introduce ToMap, a multi-agent framework that structures proof autoformalization as a Decomposer-Formalizer-Prover pipeline with efficient test-time optimization guided by formal verification and semantic rubrics for proof quality. Rather than distributing test-time compute across all agents, we perform bottleneck analysis and identify the Decomposer as the critical bottleneck: the quality of its atomic, self-contained proof units directly determines whether downstream agents can successfully formalize and prove each step. ToMap therefore treats the Formalizer and Prover as downstream executors and efficiently focuses test-time compute on Decomposer refinement. This refinement follows a loop inspired by GEPA, evolving prompts over candidate decompositions and using formal verification progress together with semantic proof rubrics to define a Pareto frontier that guides the next decomposition update. Experiments on ProofFlowBench show that ToMap improves over the best previous method by 19.0% when evaluated by both syntactic correctness and semantic faithfulness, while requiring lower test-time cost. Scaling analysis shows that most gains emerge within a few iterations of decomposition evolution, guiding test-time budget selection.

When an LLM judge calls a peer review analytical and a human committee calls another review high quality, are they tracking the same thing? We argue they are not, and that the difference matters philosophically. We operationalise Kahneman's dual-process theory into a structured rubric for peer review and release Kahneman4Review, a benchmark of 3,563 rated reviews scored along nine theoretically motivated textual dimensions, eight bias diagnostics, and a continuous reasoning-quality score. Three findings bear on trustworthiness: decision tier is not detectably aligned with the rubric's text-grounded epistemic-quality proxy; public-showcase agentic reviews receive higher raw scores than pooled human reviews, but length and venue explain most of the gap and the samples are not paper-paired; and ICLR review-text diagnostics shift at the 2022--2023 transition, temporally coincident with widespread LLM availability but without identifying its cause. A matched function-probe pilot further shows that the rubric distinguishes textual probes designed to contrast genuine fault-finding with surface fluency. We argue that a trustworthy reliability benchmark for LLM judges must separate analytical form from epistemic function, and propose concrete design choices toward that goal. An interactive demo is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/nuojohnchen/Kahneman4Review.

Class imbalance poses a fundamental challenge in risk-sensitive applications such as fraud detection and medical diagnosis, where minority-class samples are scarce yet critical for accurate classification. Existing oversampling methods generate synthetic samples to rebalance class distributions; however, they often produce large numbers of low-quality candidates that distort decision boundaries or introduce artifacts, leading to overfitting and degraded generalization. In this work, we introduce RUBRIC, a generator-agnostic filtering framework that formulates synthetic sample selection as a quality-over-quantity optimization problem. RUBRIC ranks candidates using a realism-utility trade-off: realism is quantified by a learned discriminator that distinguishes real samples from synthetic samples, while utility captures proximity to the decision boundary through a concave margin-based scoring function. We show that, under mild regularity conditions, the proposed filtering strategy monotonically tightens the generalization bound for margin-based classifiers by jointly reducing distribution shift and suppressing near-negative tail contributions. Through extensive experiments on credit-card fraud detection and other imbalanced benchmarks, we demonstrate that RUBRIC improves F1-macro and recall while maintaining comparable ROC-AUC across several generators. We also provide explicit lambda-sensitivity analysis to show how users can recover AUPRC when ranking quality is prioritized.

In this paper, we introduce Claim-Level Rubric Rewards (CuRe), a structured reward framework designed to address the reward-design bottleneck in reinforcement learning for dense video captioning. Existing reward designs generally fall into two categories: holistic response-level judgment across heterogeneous criteria, or alignment-based evaluation against reference captions. However, both paradigms suffer from fundamental limitations. Holistic rewards struggle to ensure factual accuracy and are prone to stylistic reward hacking, while reference-based rewards overly rely on rigid textual alignment, failing to preserve the completeness and diversity inherent to open-ended generation tasks. To address these challenges, CuRe reformulates reward modeling as fine-grained claim-level verification. Specifically, CuRe decomposes captions into category-aware atomic claims through a structured rubric, converting holistic evaluation into simpler and more reliable claim-level verification.

Reinforcement learning (RL) for non-verifiable instruction following increasingly relies on LLM judges with prompt-specific rubrics as reward signals. While recent methods adapt these rubrics to the evolving policy during training, the training prompts themselves remain static, drawn from fixed corpora. This static approach often results in a critical misalignment between prompt difficulty and policy capability, leaving the judge unable to recover a discriminative reward signal when prompts fail to elicit quality variance among rollouts. To address this misalignment, we introduce LLM-as-a-Tutor, a framework that extends the LLM's role from judge to tutor: a single model serves as an examiner that pairwise-compares policy rollouts to detect non-challenging prompts, and as a generator that appends atomic constraints to them. This append-only design monotonically raises difficulty in step with the policy's capability, producing a self-calibrating training signal without external difficulty schedules. On three complex instruction-following benchmarks, our method consistently outperforms both policy-unaware baselines and prior policy-adaptive methods that adapt rubrics or rewrite prompts, suggesting prompt adaptation as a missing axis of policy-awareness in non-verifiable RL.

Multiple-choice medical benchmarks are increasingly saturated, and recent rubric-based evaluations such as HealthBench have shown that open-ended clinical performance is far from solved - its "Hard" subset top score remains 32%. We present a small, deliberately difficult evaluation dataset of five clinician-authored clinical scenarios spanning four specialties (anaesthesia, internal/family medicine, emergency medicine, and obstetrics), each accompanied by an atomic, weighted, MECE rubric (25-62 criteria per task; 184 criteria total) authored from a clinician-drafted golden answer. We evaluate three frontier models: GPT 5.4, Claude Opus 4.7, and Gemini 3.1 Pro. Mean rubric pass rates were 0.47 (Claude), 0.38 (GPT), and 0.37 (Gemini). The central finding is an inversion of clinical priority: the highest-weighted (weight-5, critical) criteria passed at only 32.4-41.7%, while low-stakes weight-1 criteria passed at 80-90%. 55 of 108 critical (weight-5) criteria (51%) were satisfied by no model. Three LLM autoraters reproduced expert met/not-met labels on 92.8-94.6% of 552 graded criteria. We position this as a methods-and-preliminary-findings contribution: the five tasks demonstrate a scalable, defensible pipeline ready to develop into a large-scale benchmark.

Skills are becoming a reusable operational layer for LLM agents, encoding SOPs, domain rules, tool workflows, scripts, and validation routines. In realistic skill repositories, overlapping skills make reliable skill-use difficult. Final verifier success is too coarse for both evaluation and training, since an agent may pass through trial and error while selecting distractor skills, skipping required steps, composing workflows incorrectly or omitting final checks. We introduce SkillCoach, a self-evolving rubric framework for evaluating and enhancing agentic skill-use. SkillCoach derives skill-grounded process rubrics from real rollouts and evaluates trajectories along four dimensions: skill selection, skill following, skill composition, and skill-grounded reflection. It keeps the external verifier as a separate outcome signal, allowing process quality to be distinguished from accidental task success. The evolved rubrics further serve as process supervision for selecting high-quality training trajectories. Experiments show that evolved rubrics substantially improve evaluation quality, expose failures hidden by final accuracy, and provide stronger supervision signals than outcome-only filtering for enhancing agentic skill-use.