Rubrics

Reliable reward and preference signals are critical for evaluating and optimizing large language models on open-ended tasks. Rubric-based judges offer a transparent way to decompose such judgments into explicit evaluation criteria, but existing annotation-free rubric generators typically rely on a single generic evaluator. As a result, they may overlook important dimensions of human preference, a failure mode we term dimensional blind spots. To address this limitation, we propose Multi-Role Rubric Generation (MRRG), a training-free and reference-free framework that elicits evaluation criteria from multiple complementary roles and consolidates them into an auditable rubric-based scorer. This scorer can be used both to validate pairwise preferences and to provide rewards for GRPO-style Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR). Experiments on preference validation benchmarks show that MRRG consistently outperforms single-role rubric generation baselines across multiple backbone models. Further RLVR experiments demonstrate that MRRG yields a stronger reward signal for improving open-ended generation.

Rubric-based scoring has become a widely used paradigm in model evaluation, typically with LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) for rubric scoring. However, the reliability of LaaJ for rubric scoring remains underexplored. This concern is especially pronounced in agentic scenarios, where long, complex outputs further challenge reliable scoring. To address this, we conduct a systematic meta-evaluation of LaaJ reliability for rubric verification. We introduce RuVerBench, the first benchmark for assessing LaaJ reliability in rubric verification for agentic scenarios. RuVerBench covers two prevalent agentic domains, deep research and agentic coding, with 2,458 instances, each containing a model-generated output, a rubric, and a human-annotated label indicating whether the output satisfies the rubric. Using RuVerBench, we evaluate numerous frontier LLMs and find that even the most advanced models achieve strong performance but still exhibit substantial noise. We further analyze the impact of key LaaJ strategies, including prompt design, batching, and majority voting, on rubric verification. We find that weaker models are more sensitive to prompt variations, batched verification presents a trade-off between accuracy and efficiency, and majority voting yields effective but diminishing returns. We have released our dataset and code to facilitate future research: https://github.com/THU-KEG/RuVerBench.

Enterprise agents increasingly operate inside workspaces: they read heterogeneous files, invoke tools, and deliver business artifacts. We introduce EnterpriseClawBench, an enterprise agent benchmark constructed from proprietary, real-world agent sessions. Starting from a large archive of workplace sessions, the EnterpriseClawBench produces 852 reproducible tasks, each paired with recovered fixtures, rewritten prompts, role classes, skill subclasses, hard rules, and semantic rubrics. Because the sessions contain internal enterprise content, we do not release the benchmark data; instead, our reusable contribution is the construction and evaluation protocol. On EnterpriseClawBench, the best configuration reaches only 0.663 (Codex with GPT-5.5). These results show that enterprise agent evaluation must report harness--model combinations, artifact delivery, visual quality, cost, runtime, and skill-transfer behavior, rather than collapsing performance into a single score. Code: https://github.com/FrontisAI/EnterpriseClawBench

Rubric-based rewards offer interpretable and fine-grained optimization signals for reinforcement learning in open-ended tasks where verifiable answers are unavailable. However, pre-constructed rubrics remain static throughout training, creating a fundamental mismatch with the evolving policy: fixed criteria gradually lose discriminative power as the model improves, leading to reward saturation and potential hacking. Recent dynamic rubric methods partially address this but rely on external frontier models or ground-truth answers, and update rubrics only at coarse granularity. We propose EvoRubrics, a co-evolutionary RL framework where a Policy LLM and a Rubric Generator jointly improve through adversarial interaction within each training step. As the policy improves under the rubric generator's guidance, the rubric generator adapts its criteria to remain discriminative and informative, enabling evaluation to track the policy in real time and naturally inducing an automatic curriculum. Experiments show that EvoRubrics consistently outperforms static and dynamic rubric baselines across benchmarks. The learned Rubric Generator further generalizes as a transferable reward model. Notably, even a fully self-supervised variant without any external supervision achieves meaningful gains, suggesting that co-evolution between generation and evaluation alone can provide sufficiently rich learning signals. Our code is publicly available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/EvoRubrics-2155/.

Automated classroom engagement recognition holds substantial promise for scalable learning analytics, yet the suitability of modern Vision-Language Models (VLMs) for this task under zero-shot conditions remains largely unexplored. We present a systematic benchmark that evaluates five widely-used VLMs: CLIP, BLIP-VQA, GPT-4o, LLaVA-1.5-7B, and Qwen2.5VL-7B-Instruct across two complementary educational datasets: DAiSEE, an individual-student video dataset (300 sampled test clips), and the Student Classroom Behaviour dataset (SCB, 1,168 scene-level images). Each model is probed with three prompt variants spanning minimal, rubric-anchored, and chain-of-thought designs. Our experiments reveal three primary failure modes of zero-shot VLMs for engagement recognition: (1) near-random performance on individual students, with Cohen's kappa never exceeding 0.10 on DAiSEE; (2) severe class collapse, where models assign 85-100% of predictions to a single engagement level regardless of visual content; and (3) extreme prompt sensitivity, with accuracy swings of up to 32 percentage points on identical images depending solely on prompt phrasing. Remarkably, scene-level classification on SCB is substantially more tractable: CLIP and GPT-4o achieve kappa approximately 0.60 when prompted with behaviorally-grounded rubrics. We also document a practical barrier for deployment: GPT-4o's safety filters reject 98% of chain-of-thought requests involving individual student faces. Our findings provide a calibrated baseline and surface critical design considerations for the use of VLMs in educational observation systems.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong potential in fine-grained translation quality evaluation (QE), yet existing MQM-based approaches typically rely on fixed rubric configurations shared across all translation samples. However, translation instances often differ substantially in error complexity, ambiguity, and required evaluation granularity, making static rubric allocation suboptimal for span-level error detection. We find that larger MQM subtype spaces improve error coverage but also introduce more false positives, while different translation instances prefer different rubric granularities, suggesting that evaluation spaces should be allocated dynamically for each case. Motivated by these observations, we propose a case-specific dynamic rubric framework that adaptively constructs MQM evaluation spaces for individual translation instances. Unlike fully free-form rubric generation methods, our framework remains grounded in the predefined MQM taxonomy while dynamically selecting suitable subtype spaces and evaluation granularity for different cases. Experiments on WMT span-level QE benchmarks across multiple model scales demonstrate that the proposed framework consistently improves MCC and produces cleaner span-level error localization compared with static rubric settings. Our results suggest that combining structured MQM rubrics with case-specific adaptive allocation is an effective strategy for fine-grained LLM-based translation evaluation.

Reinforcement learning for multi-step LLM agents often relies on scalar rewards that indicate success but cannot explain why a trajectory is good or bad. Rubric-based rewards improve interpretability through natural-language criteria, but existing methods score at the trajectory level and freeze the scorer behind a closed-source judge, leaving step-level credit assignment unresolved and the judge itself static. We propose ARCO (Adaptive Rubric CO-evolution), a rubric framework in which a same-scale model $μ$ shares a backbone with two heads: a generation head that produces per-step criteria, and a score head that predicts rubric-conditioned step-level rewards. A trajectory decomposition constraint ties the sum of step rewards to the terminal outcome, enabling credit assignment without step-level labels, while $μ$ and the policy $π$ are jointly updated on on-policy data so that the rubric content and the scoring function co-evolve at the parameter level. Across HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, and MuSiQue with two open-source backbones, ARCO improves the best EM in every setting over strong outcome-, rubric-, and process-reward baselines, and analyses show that its rubrics are step-specific, robust to design choices, and useful for diagnosing agent behavior. Codes and data are available at https://github.com/zihangtian/ARCO.

Post-training of reasoning language models is commonly driven by supervised distillation and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. Distillation often relies on chain-of-thought annotations that are expensive to obtain and may themselves be noisy, incomplete, or partially incorrect; even when the final solution is correct, an imperfect rationale can interfere with learning. Reinforcement learning with verified rewards, on the other hand, typically compresses evaluative feedback into a scalar signal, obscuring which aspects of a response should be improved. We propose \textbf{Rubric-Conditioned Self-Distillation}, a framework that incorporates rubrics as structured, fine-grained feedback for on-policy self-distillation. Our method conditions the teacher model on criterion-level rubrics and uses it to provide token-level guidance on the student's own sampled trajectories. This design avoids treating a single reference rationale as the sole supervision target. Instead, rubrics specify what a strong response should satisfy, enabling more fine-grained credit assignment over the reasoning process than scalar reward optimization. We instantiate this framework with a two-stage pipeline that first learns to generate task-specific rubrics and then trains a rubric-guided reasoner. We evaluate on a diverse suite of science reasoning benchmarks and results show that rubric-conditioned self-distillation effectively converts rubric-level criteria into token-level guidance over the reasoning process, surpassing GRPO by 1.0 points and OPSD by 0.9 points on average.

The LLM-empowered personal health agents with user health (sensor) metrics have offered a promising pathway to alleviate global disparities in healthcare access. However, large-scale clinical deployment remains constrained by an open-ended evaluation bottleneck: physician annotation is reliable but costly and unscalable, while LLM-as-a-judge evaluators are scalable but subjective, inconsistent, and sometimes clinically misaligned. We introduce RubricsTree, a scalable evaluation framework with an expert-aligned hierarchical taxonomy of over 100 atomic, clinically-verifiable Boolean rubrics, evolving from the insights of 4,000 real user queries through an iterative human-in-the-loop curation protocol with an expertise panel led by an experienced physician. A context-aware adaptive router activates only the relevant auto-weighted rubric subset per query, providing the throughput needed for scalable evaluation with expert-aligned quality. Through a systematic meta-evaluation, we show that RubricsTree (i) substantially exceeds a strong large-scale evaluation baseline in expert alignment on challenging open-ended queries; (ii) reliably penalizes contextually degraded responses; and (iii) when used as structured instructions, text feedback, or training rewards for performance optimization, yields up to ~66% relative gains on HealthBench for Gemini, GPT, and Qwen model families. RubricsTree thus provides a scalable, auditable, and evolving evaluation infrastructure required for the continuous optimization of product-level personal healthcare AI.

Generative AI and large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to question generation and automated assessment. However, deploying LLMs in preparation for high-stakes exams requires more than prompt engineering; it demands software pipelines that systematically ground model outputs in authorised curriculum artefacts and marking guidelines issued by education authorities. This paper presents a curriculum-grounded, configurable LLM-as-Judge pipeline for question-level marking, co-developed with an industrial partner, to support exam preparation for university admission. The pipeline identifies the relevant topics, subtopics, and cognitive demand of a question, and assembles verifiable and authorised context to support LLM judgement. Curriculum intent is operationalised through concrete syllabus artefacts, including prescribed verbs and outcomes, performance band descriptors, glossary definitions, and marking-guideline principles. A staged LLM workflow is employed to first generate question-specific rubrics, capturing structured expectations of performance, and then derive and evaluate marking criteria used to allocate marks to student responses. This design improves consistency, transparency, and alignment with official marking practices. Preliminary evaluation shows that the proposed LLM-as-Judge pipeline delivers marking outcomes comparable to human tutors, while yielding justifications that are more traceable to authorised curriculum artefacts and marking standards. The pipeline has also been integrated into an online study platform, where early deployment data provide initial insights into operational usage and manual overrides.

Deep research agents synthesize long-form reports by searching and reasoning over retrieved evidence. Reinforcement learning with rubric-based rewards improves these agents by optimizing them against checkable criteria that translate report quality into reward signals, but its efficiency depends on whether those criteria reliably capture the task scope and evidence needs. Most existing studies ask an LLM to generate rubrics for a given query, but when the model fails to infer the underlying information needs, the generated rubrics may be incomplete and reduce RL efficiency. To obtain more reliable query--rubric supervision, we introduce DeepRubric, a data construction framework that reverses this process: instead of inferring evaluation criteria for a given query, it first determines what an evidence-backed report should be evaluated on and then synthesizes aligned query--rubric pairs from those evaluation targets. Starting from a sampled seed topic, DeepRubric builds an evidence tree by recursively expanding evidence-backed sub-questions, whose leaves serve as atomic and verifiable evaluation targets. It then uses the evidence tree to synthesize the training query and rubrics, ensuring that the reward evaluates exactly the information requested by the query. Using DeepRubric, we construct 9K query--rubric supervision examples and train DeepRubric-8B with rubric-based GRPO, achieving comparable performance to prior open state-of-the-art deep research models across three benchmarks with roughly 13x fewer RL GPU-hours.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning can improve LLM performance, but high answer confidence may be misleading when the accompanying CoT rationale is plausible yet incomplete or poorly supported. We study confidence--rationale alignment: whether a model's confidence in its committed answer is justified by its generated rationale. We introduce a GRPO-based reinforcement learning framework that jointly rewards answer correctness, committed-answer probability, and rubric-based rationale support, where the rubric assesses grounding, coherence, task match, and connection to the selected answer without revealing the gold answer to the judge. Across MedQA, MathQA, and OpenBookQA using three open-weight LLMs, our method reduces the confidence--rationale alignment error by up to 26.51% compared with untuned checkpoints, SFT, and correctness-only GRPO, while maintaining competitive accuracy and often improving calibration. These results show that reliable CoT reasoning requires not only confident answers, but rationales that substantively support them.

Verifier reliability is not portable across tasks. A verifier-guided self-DPO pipeline with genuine held-out gains on MathVista (+9.6 points on self-training data, +8.0 held out) can be harmful on MMMU. The failure is invisible from the target-task self-training signal: over six learner-verifier configurations, MMMU self-training performance still improves by +3.52 points while held-out performance drops by 1.42 points. We call this silent negative transfer: a verifier validated as useful before can still show signatures of successful self-training after its induced update stops transferring to unseen data. Downstream failure alone cannot diagnose this: poor generalization may mean the verifier induces a wrong learning direction, or that the correct direction itself does not generalize beyond the self-training distribution. We separate these effects via gradient fidelity F, the alignment between verifier-induced and correct training directions, and gradient transferability T, the alignment between correct and held-out directions, giving a conservative Safe-Transfer Margin: positive first-order held-out alignment is certified when arccos(F) + arccos(T) < pi/2. We then introduce Asymmetric Acceptance Gating (AAG), a precision-first filter selecting preference pairs by the verifier's absolute confidence in the response receiving the positive update. On MMMU, AAG raises fidelity from 0.29 to 0.42. In a same-cell analysis, the correct direction stays positively aligned with the held-out direction (T = 0.31), yet raw verification rotates the induced update to negative held-out alignment (-0.13); AAG restores positive alignment (+0.22). Across all six MMMU configurations, AAG beats raw verifier-guided training. Verifier reliability thus means not that it worked before, but that it induces the right update on the task at hand and that this update stays useful beyond the data that generated it.

Search Agents (SAs) typically leverage large language models (LLMs) to support complex information-seeking tasks by autonomously exploring web sources and synthesizing information into comprehensive responses. For SAs evaluation, prior benchmarks mainly focus on specialized tasks that are unlikely to arise in real-world user scenarios. Moreover, their reliance on coarse task-level rubrics often limits evaluation interpretability. To bridge this gap, we introduce DailyReport, an open-ended benchmark to evaluate SA capabilities on daily search tasks. It contains 150 open-ended tasks with 3,546 associated rubrics, capturing widely discussed and timely information demands of real-world users. Each task is decomposed into subtasks and evaluated with cascade rubrics across disentangled dimensions. Through cascade performance attribution and user-centric aggregation, we derive highly interpretable scores for each dimension, along with a user preference score. Our results on 17 agentic systems show that current systems still fall short of users' expectations. To facilitate future research, our dataset and code are made publicly available at https://github.com/AGI-Eval-Official/DailyReport.

Rubrics have emerged as an alternative to RLVR in open-ended domains where a single ground-truth final answer is not available. Existing rubric-based training methods rely on an LLM verifier that scores each rollout against rubrics. This introduces substantial training-time overhead, exposes optimization to verifier-specific biases, and reduces rubric feedback to a sparse end-of-trajectory signal. We propose Rubric-Guided Self-Distillation (RGSD), a verifier-free training method in which the base policy, conditioned on the rubric, serves as the teacher for the unconditioned student. RGSD distills the rubric-conditioned teacher distribution into the student token-by-token, replacing sparse trajectory-level rewards with dense per-token learning signals and removing the LLM judge from the training loop entirely. Across Qwen-2.5 (3B, 7B) and Qwen3-Thinking (4B, 8B) models on medical and science domains, RGSD achieves rubric satisfaction comparable to judge-based GRPO while using one on-policy rollout per prompt and no training-time verifier calls. Ablations show that raw rubrics provide a stronger teacher enrichment signal than self-generated reference responses, while a stronger GRPO judge can outperform RGSD in some settings, positioning RGSD as a complementary verifier-free alternative when verifier cost or reliability is the bottleneck.

For highly capable AI systems to operate safely in dynamic, open-ended environments, they must be able to identify, understand, and respond to moral reasons for action, and constrain their behaviour accordingly. A growing body of research aims to evaluate this capacity -- moral competence -- in today's most capable AI systems, recently reaching broadly pessimistic conclusions. One of the most ambitious such papers collects gold-standard human-authored rubrics for evaluating moral reasoning in 1,000 cases, and benchmarks frontier AI models against those rubrics, with underwhelming results. In this paper, we argue that the MoReBench dataset can be redeployed to give a much more optimistic picture of LLMs' moral reasoning (an essential part of moral competence). We show that if, instead of scoring LLMs' responses to these cases against these rubrics, we instead give the LLMs the same task given to humans -- to generate scoring rubrics for the moral analysis of particular cases -- the rubrics they generate are both better calibrated to the human rubrics than their open-ended responses, and, where they differ, plausibly reflect nothing more than the vast dimensionality of most moral problems, as well as highlighting some human departures from the "rubric for creating rubrics". Taking these points into consideration, the MoReBench dataset suggests that LLMs are significantly more capable at moral reasoning than was previously believed.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to real-world legal tasks, evaluating the reliability of their open-ended legal responses has become essential. These tasks require context-sensitive answers and allow little room for error, motivating fine-grained and diagnostic evaluation that can identify specific sources of response quality failures. We introduce LexRubric, a rubric-based benchmark for evaluating open-ended Chinese legal tasks. LexRubric contains 649 instances from legal consultation and judicial examination, which reflect both everyday legal needs and professional legal reasoning and cover 14 legal scenarios. It further includes 12,337 expert-written atomic scoring criteria organized under a unified six-dimensional framework, enabling accurate evaluation and diagnostic analysis across tasks and evaluation dimensions. To validate the reliability of the evaluation, we test multiple judge models and compare model-based judgments with human judgments. We further evaluate 18 recent general and legal-domain LLMs on LexRubric. Results show that different models exhibit distinct capability profiles, and that open-ended legal tasks remain challenging for current LLMs. Data is available at: https://github.com/foggpoy/LexRubric.

Safety judges are increasingly deployed to evaluate model outputs against evolving criteria, yet recent meta-evaluation work shows they remain brittle under prompt and rubric variation, with false negative-rate swings of up to 0.24 reported for stylistic perturbations alone. We argue that safety judgment is fundamentally a rubric-following problem: a robust judge must apply the given evaluation criteria consistently across rubric formulations rather than memorize one specific template. We propose a training strategy that combines (i) instance-conditioned dynamic rubrics generated from prompt-response-label triples to expose the judge to the variability of evaluation criteria, and (ii) a reliable-to-expressive curriculum that begins with clean fixed-rubric supervision and progressively introduces noisier dynamic-rubric data. We evaluate on a single human-labeled set under three contrasting rubric prompts (HarmBench-style, ShieldGemma-style, and a domain-specific rubric). Our 12B curriculum judge achieves 94.12-94.88% accuracy across the three rubrics with a cross-rubric range of only 0.76, outperforming general-purpose LLMs, dedicated safety classifiers, and reasoning-oriented judges up to 30B in both peak accuracy and stability. An ablation shows that naively mixing dynamic rubrics into SFT increases cross rubric variance (1.44 -> 3.60); only the curriculum schedule recovers and improves on the fixed rubric baseline (variance 0.76).

Evaluation protocols can lag behind LLM capabilities. Programmatically verified benchmarks cover narrow surface constraints, whereas real-world instruction following and agentic workflows require judging semantic, contextual, and policy-dependent behavior. We study expert-curated rubric-based evaluation as a unified mechanism for measurement and reinforcement-learning rewards across two settings: complex instruction following and enterprise agentic tasks. We identify rubric-design choices that affect reward quality, including maximum viable atomicity, intent-aware criterion design, and LLM-judge calibration. We introduce ComplexConstraints, an expert-curated instruction-following suite comprising a public 75-prompt benchmark with 1,559 rubric criteria and a disjoint 1,000-prompt training set, with 10-40 atomic criteria per prompt. Empirically, rubric rewards improve training in both fixed task datasets, such as ComplexConstraints, and stateful RL environments, such as CoreCraft. Training a 4B model on ComplexConstraints improves mean criterion pass rate by +15.5 pp on a held-out split, bringing it within 0.5 pp of the untrained baseline of a roughly 60x larger Qwen3 model, and the gains transfer to external benchmarks the model never saw during training: +8.4 pp on AdvancedIF and +10.1 pp on MultiChallenge. In CoreCraft, rubric-reward RL likewise transfers to out-of-distribution benchmarks (+4.5 pp BFCL, +7.4 pp tau^2-Bench, +6.8 pp Toolathlon). These results show that expert-authored rubrics provide effective evaluation targets and scalable reward signals for improving LLM instruction following and agentic behavior.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) advance toward open-ended autonomous agents, the mechanisms used to evaluate and guide their behavior must evolve accordingly. This work introduces the rubric as a unifying framework capturing this evolution, characterizing rubrics as a dynamic response to successive LLM paradigm shifts that recurs across otherwise independent efforts in evaluation, reinforcement learning, and safety alignment. We define rubrics as explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards, and demonstrate that their recurrence across these research threads is not coincidental. We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training. Rubrics manifest at three progressively deeper levels: at the evaluative level, they decompose holistic judgments into verifiable dimensions; at the training level, they serve as dense feedback signals providing process-level guidance where scalar rewards fall short; at the intrinsic level, they emerge dynamically from model behaviors, driving self-improvement. We further assess rubric reliability across generation quality, execution fidelity, theoretical constraints, and security threats, before surveying rubric-based benchmarks across diverse domains. By rendering assessment transparent and decomposable, rubrics translate human value expectations into machine-learnable signals, serving as the enduring bridge between human intentions and machine behavior.

Rubric-based evaluation is a promising paradigm for judging large language model (LLM) outputs, yet self-generated rubrics lag human-annotated criteria on hard instances. We argue this discriminative gap reflects an objective mismatch: self-generated rubrics describe good responses, whereas effective criteria must discriminate between close candidates. To close this gap, we introduce SVR (Support Vector Rubrics), a framework that recasts rubric construction as max-margin boundary learning over preference data. SVR mines contrastive features from preference pairs into a rubric bank, learns a prompt-conditioned selector together with global rubric weights, and iteratively refines the bank through support-pair selection and adversarial probing of hard negatives. At inference, given only the prompt, SVR retrieves the top-rubrics from the bank and scores responses. On RubricBench, SVR narrows the gap to human reference rubrics from 24.1 to 0.3 points and outperforms strong self-rubric and judge baselines, and the learned bank transfers across judges without retraining. On RewardBench 1&2, and RM-Bench, it remains competitive with dedicated reward models, demonstrating broader reward modeling capability. Overall, boundary-defining rubrics offer a principled route to closing the discriminative gap in LLM evaluation.

Open-ended reward modeling requires judges that can follow subtle, domain-specific preferences when verifiable answers are unavailable. Existing rubric-based methods often address this by generating criteria online for each query, but the extra generation step can add inference overhead and produce rigid or misaligned guidance. We introduce Eval-Skill, an exploration-guided method that synthesizes reusable evaluation skills for reward modeling and reframes reward guidance as context evolution rather than parameter training or per-query rubric generation. Using only 100 cases per domain for skill evolution, Eval-Skill synthesizes reusable domain-level evaluation skills through two progressive stages, workflow generation followed by principle generation, with exploration and selection interleaved across both stages. Once generated, a skill is directly injected into the judge context. Across multiple RM benchmarks, Eval-Skill consistently improves diverse judge backbones; on RewardBench 2, it yields significant gains over vanilla judging for each main backbone (+13.44% for Qwen3-8B, and 18.51% for DeepSeek-V4-Flash). Further analyses of evolution-time scaling, generalizability, and transferability show that compact evaluation skills offer an efficient new paradigm for LLM-based evaluation. Code is available at https://github.com/xing-stellus-yue/Eval-Skill.

We present MADRAG, a training-free framework for analytic essay scoring that combines multi-agent reasoning with retrieval-augmented grounding. Unlike standard LLM-as-judge approaches, which are prone to bias and unstable scoring, MADRAG decomposes evaluation into an interactive process: an Advocate identifies strengths, a Skeptic critiques weaknesses, and a Judge aggregates their arguments into a final score. Crucially, the Judge is augmented with rubric-aligned exemplar retrieval, enabling calibration through comparison with scored examples. Our results show that MADRAG significantly outperforms prompt-based baselines while approaching the performance of supervised systems without requiring task-specific training. Ablation studies demonstrate that retrieval drives calibration gains, while debate improves reasoning on higher-level traits. Our findings highlight the complementary roles of structured interaction and external memory in reliable LLM-based evaluation.

Undergraduate research programs such as the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) at Purdue University receive thousands of applications every year, requiring significant time and effort for program staff to evaluate each submission consistently and within tight timelines. This work-in-progress paper describes the development and initial deployment of a large language model (LLM)-based tool to assist in the evaluation of approximately 1,200 student Statements of Purpose (SoPs) for the SURF 2026 cycle at Purdue University. The workflow utilizes OpenAI GPT models (GPT-4o, GPT-5-mini, and GPT-5.2) and uses a structured rubric across six subcategories, each scored on a 0-3 scale. A few SoPs, graded by program staff, were used to tune the model responses. The model prompt was designed to generate both numerical scores, rationales (including positive and negative aspects) and short excerpts from each submission. Using GPT-5.2, the full batch of 1,200 SoPs was processed in approximately 4.6 hours of compute time, averaging roughly 14 seconds per SoP (with per-SoP timing varying with SoP length, which ranged from 500 to 2,000 words). Notable differences in rubric adherence were observed across model versions, with GPT-5.2 adhering most closely. Disagreement in model scores was more pronounced for lower-scoring submissions. The LLM outputs replicated the role previously played by distributed human graders, providing the program coordinator with scored and rationale-annotated outputs for the entire applicant pool. The program coordinator then reviewed these outputs alongside each applicant's SoP, applying the same downstream office criteria used in prior SURF cycles, to produce a shortlist of strong candidates. This coordinator review was completed in approximately 4 hours, compared to the multi-week coordination effort required in prior program cycles.

Rubric-based reinforcement learning (RL) uses an LLM-as-a-Judge (LaaJ) to score model outputs according to rubrics as rewards. However, policy models may exploit latent biases in the judge, leading to reward hacking and ineffective or unsafe training outcomes. In real-world rubric-based RL, such hacking behaviors are often subtle and entangled with multiple judge biases, making them difficult to analyze, detect, and mitigate. In this paper, we introduce CHERRL, a controllable hacking environment for rubric-based RL. By injecting known biases into LaaJ, CHERRL enables stable reproduction of reward hacking, explicit observation of reward divergence, and precise identification of hacking onset. This provides a clean experimental testbed for studying the mechanisms and mitigations of reward hacking in rubric-based RL. To demonstrate its utility, we analyze different judge biases from the perspectives of discoverability and exploitability, and explore an agent-based system for automatically detecting reward hacking onset from training logs. The code and environment are publicly available at https://github.com/THUAIS-Lab/CHERRL.

Small open-weight models struggle at long-form creative writing: their generated stories either fall far short of the requested length, or their quality significantly degrades as length increases, especially when compared to frontier models. We present POLARIS (Policy Optimization with LLM-as-a-judge rewards and Anchored-Reference Injection for Storywriting), a lower-compute GRPO recipe with two key ingredients: a frontier LLM judge with a structured Story Quality rubric as the online reward, and human-reference injection (HRI), where a teacher-forced human-written story serves as a high-reward anchor within each GRPO group. By applying our training recipe to Qwen3.5-9B, using a dataset of approximately 1.4K prompt-story pairs derived from 100 short-story anthologies and 4 A100 GPUs, we obtain POLARIS-9B. Across five benchmarks spanning in-distribution and out-of-distribution prompts and rubrics, POLARIS-9B is competitive with much larger open-weight models while following length instructions more closely. A blinded human evaluation confirms that POLARIS-9B is preferred to the base Qwen3.5-9B and on par with Qwen3.5-27B. Despite training only on stories up to 4k words, POLARIS-9B preserves quality on prompts requesting stories up to 3 times the training length, a regime where most open-weight models degrade substantially in quality, length adherence, or both. More broadly, our results suggest that length generalization is a meaningful stress test for creative-writing models and a useful lens for distinguishing otherwise close models.

Rubric-based RL is a promising route for extending reinforcement learning beyond verifiable rewards, yet existing methods optimize rubrics while treating the query distribution as fixed. We identify a structural bottleneck: rubric quality is constrained by query structure. Open-ended queries yield vague rubrics; naively narrowing them introduces fabricated references that no model can verify, so all responses fail and training receives no reward signal. We present QUBRIC, a framework that co-designs queries and rubrics. Teacher-derived key points ground the rewriting of open-ended queries into scenario-based, evaluable questions. Contrastive rubric generation then turns teacher-policy gaps into query-level criteria, and learnability filtering retains only informative query-rubric pairs for GRPO training. QUBRIC achieves a +5.5 point gain on ArenaHard over the SFT baseline. Trained only on instruction-following data, it further transfers to three held-out benchmarks spanning legal, moral, and narrative reasoning (+6.3 points on average), with improvements concentrated in reasoning-related dimensions. These results provide evidence that co-designing queries and rubrics can make rubric-based RL a practical complement to RLVR beyond strictly verifiable tasks.

Rubric-based rewards are increasingly used for open-ended language model post-training, but criterion-level scores are often aggregated as independent utilities. This flat scalarization ignores rubric-specified prerequisite and activation relations among criteria, allowing reward or penalty to be counted even when the condition that licenses it is absent. We call this structural reward-aggregation failure \textbf{False Credit Propagation} (FCP). To address this limitation, we propose \ourname (\textbf{G}raphical \textbf{E}vent \textbf{A}ggregation for \textbf{R}ubric rewards), a probabilistic graphical framework for dependency-aware rubric aggregation. \ourname models each criterion outcome as a latent Bernoulli event in a typed rubric graph, propagates soft suppression from unsupported parent events to their children, and aggregates the resulting event probabilities into a normalized expected signed utility. This yields a linear-time reward computation that can be plugged into standard rubric-based RL pipelines without changing the outer optimization algorithm. Experiments on HealthBench, WritingBench, and PLawBench with two policy backbones show that \ourname consistently improves over flat aggregation and deterministic gating, achieving relative gains of up to 15.5% over flat aggregation. FCP diagnostics further show that \ourname reduces leakage by 96.5% relative to flat aggregation while preserving more licensed downstream utility than deterministic gating. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/LvCan926/GEAR.

The evolution of LLMs into tool-enabled agents creates a new class of safety challenges associated with real-world execution rather than simple text generation. Existing alignment methods often rely on coarse refusal signals or static supervision, making it difficult to balance safety with useful tool execution across diverse agentic risks. We introduce RUBAS, a rubric-based reinforcement learning framework for agent safety. RUBAS decomposes agent behavior into four dimensions: tool-use safety, argument safety, response safety, and helpfulness. These structured rubrics provide fine-grained and interpretable rewards over complete agent trajectories, enabling reinforcement learning to optimize safe tool use while preserving task completion. Extensive experiments across multiple agent safety benchmarks and models show that RUBAS improves safety over standard alignment baselines, reduces tool-grounded hallucinations, and maintains competitive utility. Our results suggest that multi-dimensional rubric rewards provide an effective training signal for aligning LLM agents in safety-critical tool-use settings.

LLM-based search agents are trained predominantly with outcome-only reward, leaving the search process itself unsupervised. This signal degenerates on outcome-homogeneous groups where all sampled trajectories share the same correctness, yielding zero within-group advantage and no gradient. Existing process supervision either trains a costly verifier or generates per-query rubrics that are inconsistent across queries and discarded after one use. We propose ARBOR (Adaptive Rubric Buffer for Online Reward), a reusable process-reward framework that maintains a rubric memory shared across queries. Query-local drafts induced from contrastive trajectories are admitted, consolidated into cross-query common rubrics, and retired as the policy evolves. A small active subset of common rubrics scores trajectories via sparse pairwise judging, and the resulting scores are added to the base reward, providing process-level gradient even when outcome reward is uniform. ARBOR consistently outperforms GRPO and DAPO baselines on four multi-hop QA benchmarks, raising average LLM-judge accuracy by up to 4.2 points and converting up to 42% of otherwise-zero-gradient training groups into informative ones.

LLM judges now score most open-ended NLP output, and their mutual agreement is routinely read as evidence that the scores can be trusted. That reading is unsafe: judges may agree because they capture quality, or because they share the same blind spots, and agreement statistics alone cannot tell these apart. We develop a geometric test that can. Treating each judge's scores as a vector, we measure spread, effective rank, the angle to human scores, and the judge-judge, judge-human, and human-human agreement triple for 42 judges on two community-built Indic benchmarks covering four domains and eight languages. Every comparison is reference-matched: a judge and a held-out rater are scored against the same two-rater mean, since an averaged reference otherwise flatters judges by several degrees. On subjective rubrics, judges agree with one another as much as humans do yet reach only 58-66% of human agreement and often concentrate on an axis humans do not weight. On the one rubric with a verifiable answer, most of that gap closes. Ensembles converge on the judges' shared axis rather than the human one, and training widens scores without rotating them. Inter-judge agreement is evidence of human alignment only after this check passes.

Open-ended reasoning and long-form generation tasks lack reliable automatic verification signals for reward-based policy optimization. Rubrics offer a promising alternative, but existing approaches treat them as given artifacts -- either hand-crafted or prompt-generated -- and often miss the task-specific, knowledge-intensive dimensions that matter most, distorting the reward signal. Our key observation is that rubric construction is itself a research problem: identifying what makes a response correct or insightful requires discovering and synthesizing external knowledge. We propose Deep Research as Rubric (DR-rubric), a two-stage framework for constructing such rubrics. Stage I elicits domain facts, structural constraints, and failure modes through iterative multi-turn agentic search; Stage II distills this evidence into atomic, independently verifiable constraints for GRPO-based policy optimization. Because the model under training can serve as its own rubric generator, DR-rubric-8B supports bootstrap rubric generation without frontier-model assistance. We evaluate on 6 benchmarks spanning agentic research and expert reasoning. Experiments show that DR-Rubric achieves strong competitive performance with only 1K -- 3K training instances, where GPT-5-generated rubrics particularly benefit breadth coverage on agentic tasks, Gemini-generated rubrics yield the most balanced performance across agentic and expert reasoning tasks, and bootstrap rubrics exhibit a specialization-to-rebalancing evolution achieving the best overall performance at the third iteration. Results demonstrate that reframing rubric construction from static evaluation templates into an evidence-driven research process yields more scalable, fine-grained reward signals for open-ended tasks.

Long-context reasoning remains a central challenge for large language models, which often fail to locate and integrate key information in extensive distracting content. Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has shown promise for this task, yet existing methods are limited by low-confusability distractors and sparse, outcome-only reward signals that cannot supervise intermediate reasoning steps. To address these issues, we introduce \textsc{LongTraceRL}. For data construction, we generate multi-hop questions via knowledge graph random walks and leverage search agent trajectories to build \emph{tiered distractors}: documents the agent read but did not cite (high confusability) and documents that appeared in search results but were never opened (low confusability), producing training contexts that are far more challenging than those built by random sampling or one-shot search. For reward design, we propose a \emph{rubric reward} that uses the gold entities along each reasoning chain as fine-grained, entity-level process supervision. This rubric reward is applied only to responses with correct final answers (positive-only strategy), distinguishing the reasoning quality among correct responses and preventing reward hacking. Experiments on three reasoning LLMs (4B--30B) across five long-context benchmarks demonstrate that \textsc{LongTraceRL} consistently outperforms strong baselines and encourages comprehensive, evidence-grounded reasoning. Codes, datasets and models are available at \href{https://github.com/THU-KEG/LongTraceRL}{https://github.com/THU-KEG/LongTraceRL}.

Aspect Sentiment Triplet Extraction (ASTE) aims to identify aspect terms, opinion terms, and sentiment polarities as structured triplets, providing essential inputs for downstream information system applications such as opinion mining, explainable recommendations, and review summarization. Prior work mainly focuses on end-to-end extraction, while post hoc verification of extracted triplets remains comparatively underexplored. This gap limits the reliability of ASTE systems, since predicted triplets may be locally plausible while being globally invalid. Moreover, candidate invalidity is multi-faceted and candidate usability is inherently graded, motivating a fine-grained verification mechanism that can filter or re-rank outputs from diverse extractors. In this paper, we propose FiVeD, a framework for Fine-grained Verification with Diagnostic reasoning supervision. Specifically, the verifier is trained with multiple complementary objectives, including validity classification and quality score estimation as primary tasks, with error type classification and rationale generation as auxiliary tasks. We define hierarchical error categories and construct plausible incorrect triplets under semantic and syntactic constraints, and leverage an off-the-shelf LLM with task-specific rubrics to produce quality scores and diagnostic rationales. During inference, the resulting quality scores are used to filter candidate outputs, supporting adjustable precision-recall tradeoffs. Experiments across multiple ASTE baselines demonstrate that FiVeD consistently improves extraction performance by up to 3.53 F1 points as a plug-and-play verification module.

Self-play can train language models without external supervision. However, existing methods require rule-checkable answers, leaving open-ended tasks dependent on curated prompts or frontier-model judges. We introduce SCOPE, a data-free self-play framework for open-ended tasks that co-evolves two policies: a Challenger that generates document-grounded tasks, and a Solver that answers them through multi-turn retrieval. A frozen copy of the initial model serves as the self-judge, which writes task-specific rubrics from the source document and grades Solver responses against them. Across three 7-8B instruction-tuned models (Qwen2.5, Qwen3, OLMo-3), SCOPE improves open-ended performance by up to +10.4 points on eight benchmarks and matches or exceeds GRPO_data trained on ~9K curated prompts. Although trained only on open-ended tasks, SCOPE also improves held-out short-form QA by up to +13.8 points on seven held-out benchmarks, surpassing GRPO_data on all three models. Ablations show that co-evolving the Challenger is necessary to keep tasks near the Solver's frontier, that gains arise from improvements in both retrieval and synthesis with the relative contribution varying by task, and that rubric generation quality is the bottleneck for self-judging.

LLM judges are increasingly used to evaluate open-ended responses, but their scores depend strongly on the rubrics that condition them. A vague rubric asking for a response to be ``helpful and factual'' can reward polished answers that invent facts or violate user intent. We treat reusable rubrics as measurement specifications: changing the rubric changes the response quality measurement induced by a fixed judge. We introduce PReMISE, a framework that, given pairwise human-preference data, (i) discovers a policy-level rubric set, and (ii) audits any rubric set under LLM-judge use along four axes: structural adequacy, reliability, preference fit, and adversarial robustness. Across rubric sources no raw source is simultaneously reliable, preference-predictive, and adversarially robust; and high inter-rater agreement does not imply low exploitability. PReMISE is the only rubric source to score non-trivially on applicability, specificity, and effective dimensionality simultaneously. We contribute two audit-targeted repair operations: preference-rank selection raises judge accuracy on paired responses from $65.0\%$ to $68.6\%$, competitive with the strongest rubric-discovery baselines and leading on two of three judges in our cross-judge sweep; reliability-constrained refinement reduces the rate at which exploit responses receive high scores from $46.4\%$ to $36.0\%$ with little change in inter-judge agreement ($α{=}.531\to.519$).

Two clinical AI systems can score nearly identically on coverage-based rubrics yet behave radically differently when their patient inputs change: one updates its recommendations to match the new clinical signal, while the other produces the same output regardless. We introduce the Causal Sensitivity Score (CSS), a pre-registered interventional metric that mutates oncology tumor-board cases along five clinically meaningful dimensions - biomarker flips, prior-treatment failures, biomarker removals, surgery-status changes, and stage perturbations - and scores whether each model updates its recommendations in the pre-registered correct direction using a {0, 0.5, 1.0} scale. Benchmarked against the Consensus Match Score (CMS), a coverage-based weighted recall metric, six frontier models from three labs evaluated in single-shot inference across 224 cases rank in nearly opposite orders: all six models change rank, the CMS-worst model becomes CSS-best, and one upper-mid CMS model ranks last on CSS. We further surface a universal safety blind spot: every frontier model fails on surgery-status interventions (at most 17.2% CSS on Family D), a finding CMS does not expose. The metric also transfers to tool-using agents: in a ReAct-style experiment, tool use improves CSS for five of six models (+2.5 to +20.3 percentage points), yet the lowest-CSS model retrieves the same chart sections and still fails to update its recommendations - revealing a structural responsiveness deficit visible only under counterfactual evaluation. Cross-judge replication and three-rater medical-professional validation confirm the aggregate findings. Interventional pre-registered metrics like CSS complement coverage-based evaluation for clinical AI agents: they capture responsiveness that coverage metrics miss and offer a candidate dense reward signal for future agentic RL systems.

LLM-as-a-Judge is a scalable alternative to human evaluation, yet existing rubric-based methods rely on human-annotated data such as reference answers or expert-crafted rubrics. We propose to automatically generate fine-grained evaluation rubrics without any human annotation. Our training-free method generates rubrics at dataset-specific and instance-specific granularities, achieving performance competitive with existing methods across four benchmarks. We further present a method that iteratively fine-tunes a rubric generator model via meta-judge reward signals. The fine-tuned generator outperforms all existing baselines in both pairwise and pointwise evaluation. Notably, a fine-tuned 14B rubric generator outperforms a much larger proprietary model at rubric generation, showing the effectiveness of our fine-tuning strategy.

Mid-training has become an important stage in modern LLM development, using large-scale curated mixtures to strengthen capabilities before final post-training. Its data selection problem is distinct: the data are optimized under a pretraining-style objective at near-pretraining scale, but are curated toward downstream capabilities and drawn from heterogeneous sources with different formats and training roles. As a result, effective selection requires both scalability and source-adaptive semantic criteria. Existing model-based methods scale well, but provide only implicit quality signals. Semantic selection methods offer stronger judgments, but usually assume fixed rubrics or standardized data formats. To address this mismatch, we propose MIRA, a source-aware filtering framework based on self-anchored rubric discovery. The key idea is to make rubric construction part of data selection: MIRA first discovers what should be evaluated for each source group, then distills those judgments into scalable student scorers for full-corpus filtering. On code-oriented mid-training with 21 sources and 5 source groups, MIRA outperforms selection baselines across nine code benchmarks and matches the full-corpus run while using only half the tokens.

While Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is effective for deterministically checkable tasks, many vision-language tasks are partially verifiable, demanding multi-criteria supervision (e.g., perceptual details, reasoning steps, and constraints). Rubrics provide a natural interface for this fine-grained supervision, but their effectiveness depends on the execution accuracy during online RL. We propose Reinforcement Learning with Robust Rubric Rewards ($\text{RLR}^3$), extending RLVR from task-level verification to criterion-level verification. $\text{RLR}^3$ routes instance-specific rubrics through two execution paths: an LLM-as-an-extractor paired with a deterministic verifier, or an LLM-as-a-Judge for non-verifiable criteria. To ensure faithful scoring, $\text{RLR}^3$ introduce a minimal exposure strategy that masks ground truths from extractors and images from judges. Furthermore, $\text{RLR}^3$ employs hierarchical aggregation to prioritize essential criteria over additional criteria, and mitigates score saturation within rollout groups. Evaluated on Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B across 15 benchmarks, $\text{RLR}^3$ consistently outperforms RLVR, yielding a 4.7-point improvement over the base model and exceeding the official instruct-to-thinking model gap. Controlled audits confirm our deterministic verification and minimal exposure significantly reduce exploitable false positives.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) has significantly advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) in verifiable domains, but aligning models for open-ended generation remains profoundly challenging due to the lack of definitive rewards. Current rubric-based RL methods mitigate this by employing explicit criteria; however, they rely heavily on static, human-annotated rubrics that inevitably cause policy lag, or expensive external proprietary models for dynamic updates. In this paper, we propose EvoRubric, a novel single-policy co-evolutionary RL framework that eliminates the reliance on static criteria and on external rubric generators. By unifying response generation and rubric generation under a single parameterized policy, EvoRubric dynamically alternates between a Reasoner and a Rubric Generator. To prevent reward hacking and ensure the reliability of generated signals, we introduce a multi-level verification pipeline featuring a meta-verifier, zero-variance pruning, and a Leave-One-Out peer consensus mechanism. Validated criteria are dynamically archived into a memory pool, yielding dense, multi-objective rewards to continuously co-optimize both roles. Extensive experiments across Medical, Writing, and Science domains demonstrate that EvoRubric consistently outperforms traditional static and external-LLM-driven alignment methods. Notably, our framework is compatible with human-expert priors. When initialized with expert-annotated rubrics, EvoRubric can further uncover novel, discriminative dimensions, achieving better performance than relying solely on static expert annotations.

Stepwise model routing improves the efficiency of Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) by assigning each reasoning step to a suitable model. Recent methods formulate routing as a sequential decision process and train the router with reinforcement learning. However, although they model routing as a process, they still supervise the router with outcome rewards. Such rewards only reflect final answer correctness and fail to evaluate intermediate routing decisions, which can weaken performance and generalization. To address this gap, we propose RoRo, a rubric-guided process reward framework for stepwise model routing. RoRo first collects diverse routing trajectories and constructs preference pairs based on outcome, cost, and process quality. It then trains a Rubricor to generate a query-specific evaluation rubric and a Judge to score routing trajectories under this rubric through alternating optimization. The resulting process rewards are combined with outcome rewards to optimize the routing policy via GRPO. Experiments on five reasoning benchmarks under both same-family and cross-family settings show that RoRo consistently outperforms strong baselines and achieves better accuracy and cost trade-offs.

Open-ended post-training benefits from rewards that make prompt-specific success conditions explicit, rather than relying only on post-hoc scalar scores. In instruction following, writing, and decision-support tasks, response quality depends on local requirements, holistic preferences, and explicit constraints, but existing reward methods often leave these criteria implicit or cover only narrowly verifiable cases. We propose a prompt-level reward specification framework that separates reward specification from reward computation. Given only prompts, our framework constructs reusable task-adaptive rubrics and executable hard-constraint checkers offline, making reward criteria explicit before training and reusable across rollouts. At scoring time, artifact-anchored rubric and code scores are combined with an independent global score for residual holistic quality, yielding a normalized hybrid reward over requirement satisfaction, holistic quality, and deterministic constraints. The framework requires no human preference annotations, reference answers, or a separately trained reward model. Experiments show that the resulting reward improves offline RM-style response ranking and supports online reinforcement learning across multiple open-ended benchmarks. Ablations further show that rubrics, global scoring, and executable verification provide complementary supervision.

LLM-based automated scoring approaches near-human performance, but scaling to new tasks remains bottlenecked by the per-item human configuration of upstream stages such as rubric construction. Human experts bypass this bottleneck through evaluation heuristics developed over extensive practice. We ask whether LLMs can learn similar heuristics directly from scoring experience, and formalize this as the concept of assessment skills: item-independent natural-language procedural knowledge that guides LLMs through specific stages of the scoring workflow. Focusing on rubric construction as a first instantiation, we propose an iterative framework that decomposes a skill into a fixed scaffold and learnable item-agnostic rules, refining the rules through LLM-driven diagnosis of scoring errors and validation-gated selection. The framework requires no expert-written rubric. On all ten ASAP-SAS items, optimized skills substantially improve LLM-based scoring and frequently surpass the dataset-provided expert rubric. Cross-item transfer experiments further reveal that learned skills capture both generalizable and item-specific patterns.

Pointwise reward modeling offers critical signals for LLM post-training, yet struggles with absolute scoring in subjective, non-verifiable settings. Rubric-based methods address this by decomposing evaluation into explicit criteria, but existing approaches typically depend on frontier LLMs and suffer from ties caused by hard Boolean aggregation. We present RUBRIC-ARROW, an alternating framework that jointly trains a rubric generator and a rubric-conditioned judge, with its RL stage using only pairwise preference data. Our method couples a probability-based scoring rule that reduces ties with phase-specific preference-based rewards and an alternating GRPO scheme that together train the pointwise evaluator. Extensive experiments show that RUBRIC-ARROW achieves competitive reward-modeling accuracy and yields consistent gains for downstream policy post-training.

Reinforcement learning in open-ended long-form generation is challenging because reliable reference answers and automatic metrics are often unavailable. Existing rubric-based methods typically rely on pointwise LLM-as-a-judge scoring, but absolute scores are difficult to calibrate across complex responses, may provide weak discrimination among same-query rollouts, and can become saturated during optimization. We propose Tournament-GRPO, a group-wise reward framework that converts rubric-guided LLM judgments into relative rewards through repeated multi-round tournaments among same-query rollouts. Tournament-GRPO compares candidates within groups, accumulates tournament outcomes, and normalizes them into group-wise rewards for GRPO training. Experiments on Deep Research Bench show that Tournament-GRPO consistently outperforms existing reward-design baselines, achieving a 4.52-point overall-score improvement over the strongest baseline. Further analyses show that tournament rewards provide a favorable effectiveness--efficiency trade-off and that tournament design affects training dynamics. These results suggest that rubric-guided tournament comparison provides an effective reward signal for reinforcement learning in open-ended long-form generation.

The open-ended generation in LLMs usually requires multi-dimensional rubrics to adequately assess quality and guide the improvement of reinforcement learning. However, a critical dilemma inherent in this training paradigm is the imbalanced reward polarization along different rubric dimensions. Under this bottleneck, even if LLMs achieve relatively high rewards after training, they may still exhibit severe deficiencies in certain dimensions, leading to a direct deterioration in user experience. To address this problem, we propose Focal Reward, a novel objective to automatically balance the training of reinforcement learning under rubric-based rewards. Specifically, we first leverage an inverse reward projection mechanism to estimate the saturation degree of each criterion in the rubric, which forms the basis to calibrate the reward direction. Then, the final objective is designed with an automatically reweighting coefficient for each criterion to achieve the fine-grained balancing. Extensive experiments across three model scales and six benchmarks demonstrate that our Focal Reward method outperforms the strongest static aggregation baseline in all 18 model-benchmark comparisons. Rollout, mechanism, and ablation analyses further show that these gains arise from online, saturation-aware reallocation toward rubrics that still have room for improvement.

Coding agents produce rich trajectories while solving software-engineering tasks. To enable agent self-evolution, these trajectories can be distilled into reusable procedural skills that compactly encode experience to guide future behavior. However, existing skill construction and maintenance methods often rely on fixed prompts and heuristic update rules, leaving it unclear how knowledge should be selected, abstracted, and maintained to best serve downstream agents. We propose CODESKILL, an LLM-based framework that reformulates skill extraction and skill-bank maintenance as a learnable management policy. CODESKILL extracts multi-granularity procedural skills from coding-agent trajectories, evolves skills with new experience, and maintains a compact skill bank for future task solving. We train CODESKILL with reinforcement learning, using a hybrid reward that combines dense rubric-based skill-quality feedback with sparse verifiable execution feedback from the frozen downstream agent. Experiments on EnvBench, SWE-Bench Verified, and Terminal-Bench 2 show that CODESKILL improves average pass rate by 9.69 over the no-skill baseline and by 4.01 over the strongest prompt-based or memory baseline, while maintaining the skill bank at a stable size during iterative construction.

ReAct-style agents for search-intensive, multi-step reasoning tasks rely largely on their own internal judgment to decide what evidence to seek, which reasoning or action step to take next, and when to stop, often producing shallow, redundant, or poorly targeted trajectories. Prior work has explored rubrics as external quality signals, but existing uses are mostly evaluative rather than action-guiding: rubrics typically serve as training-time rewards or post-hoc evaluators of completed outputs, and in deep-research settings they are often coarse-grained and report-level rather than step-level. We introduce Co-ReAct, a rubric-guided action-selection framework that uses rubrics as step-level guidance during inference. At each decision step, Co-ReAct injects a rubric into the agent's context to guide the next Reason-or-Act decision, specifying what the agent should target in evidence seeking, search, reasoning, or self-evaluation. To make this guidance reliable, we train a dedicated rubric generator with GRPO. Unlike prior pairwise or binary preference formulations, our objective optimizes a list-wise Spearman rank-correlation reward against multi-judge expert consensus rankings, encouraging rubrics that are discriminative rather than merely plausible. On DeepResearchBench and SQA-CS-V2, Co-ReAct consistently improves over ReAct and representative test-time compute baselines across search agents built on both 8B/14B open-source and frontier closed-source base models. The trained rubric generator can also serve as a drop-in component that improves these baselines without changing their underlying decision mechanisms. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/ZBWpro/Co-ReAct.

Rubric-based rewards offer a promising way to extend reinforcement learning (RL) for large language models beyond tasks with automatically verifiable answers. However, scaling rubric-based RL remains challenging: existing approaches often rely on expert-written rubrics and manually constructed question sets, while fixed task-level rubrics may fail to capture the evaluation requirements of individual questions. We propose ARES (Automated Rubric synthEsis for Scalable RL), a framework for automatically constructing rubric-based RL data at scale. Starting from raw pretraining documents, ARES converts source knowledge into self-contained question-answer pairs and co-generates question-specific weighted rubrics, enabling instance-level reward supervision for open-ended responses. To improve diversity and quality, ARES conditions generation on domain labels and persona information, and applies validation filters for question self-containment, answer faithfulness, and rubric validity. Using ARES, we construct 100K rubric-annotated instances across ten domains. Experiments on seven benchmarks show that rubric-based RL trained with ARES, outperforms continual pretraining, supervised fine-tuning, and binary-reward RL, with the largest gains on multi-dimensional open-ended tasks such as healthcare and instruction following.

Recent RL methods have substantially improved the reasoning abilities of LLMs. Existing reward designs mainly follow two paradigms: (1) Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) derives outcome signals from executable checks or ground-truth answers, but provides limited guidance for intermediate reasoning behaviors. (2) Rubrics-as-reward (RaR) goes beyond final-answer checking by using natural-language rubrics to assess reasoning quality and task compliance, but often requires instance-specific rubrics and substantial design effort. To address these issues, we introduce Metacognition-as-Reward (MaR), a metacognition-inspired RL framework that guides LLM reasoning through two general process dimensions: i) metacognitive knowledge, which identifies task-relevant information without hand-crafted instance-specific rubrics, and ii) metacognitive regulation, which plans and adjusts the reasoning process to provide reward guidance beyond final-answer outcomes. MaR scaffolds model rollouts into explicit metacognitive components and optimizes them with a trajectory-level reward over task knowledge coverage, regulation fidelity, and final-answer correctness. In this way, MaR extends reward feedback to reasoning trajectories while grounding the reward signals in general metacognitive dimensions. Experiments on 22 benchmarks show that MaR consistently improves model performance, achieving up to a 7.7% gain over the base model and up to an 11.0% gain over vanilla DAPO. Notably, Qwen3.5-9B + MaR narrows the gap to frontier models, surpassing GPT-OSS-120B on overall average and outperforming stronger models on several individual benchmarks. Process-level analysis further shows substantial improvements in reasoning process quality. MaR also generalizes to out-of-domain datasets, where MaR-trained models improve over their corresponding base models on average.

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.

Legal proposition generation is central to legal reasoning and doctrinal scholarship, yet remain under-examined in Legal NLP. This paper investigates the automatic generation and evaluation of legal propositions from decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union using large language models (LLMs). We introduce LP-Eval, a three-step evaluation rubric co-designed with legal experts that decomposes legal proposition quality into formal validity and substantive dimensions. Using this rubric, we release a dataset of two experts' annotations for 100 LLM-generated legal propositions. Our results show that LLMs can generate predominantly well-formed and high-quality propositions, while expert evaluations reveal higher quality for propositions derived from well established cases than from recent ones. We further examine LLMs as evaluators and find that rubric-guided LLM judgments align more closely with expert assessments than direct overall scoring, but remain insensitive to finer-grained distinctions captured by human experts.

When the same LLM generates assessment items, simulates student responses, and scores them, the validation loop is self-referential. We introduce Generative-Evaluative Agreement (GEA), a validity criterion measuring whether an LLM's scoring function recovers the skill levels its generative function was instructed to produce. In the first direct measurement of GEA on a two-stage adaptive assessment, the model recovers roughly half the intended variance r = 0.698 with systematic positive bias. GEA is strong r > 0.7 for syntactically verifiable skills but near zero for design-level skills, and low-skill overestimation inflates scores near the routing threshold. We argue that granular, skill-decomposed rubrics are the principal proposed mechanism for strengthening GEA and outline complementary mitigations.

Existing text-to-image (T2I) evaluation metrics mainly assess whether generated images align with information explicitly stated in the prompt, but often fail to capture factual requirements that are implicit, externally grounded, or identity-defining. As a result, they are not well suited for evaluating factual correctness in prompts involving scientific knowledge, historical facts, products, or culture-specific concepts. We propose FActually Grounded Evaluation and Refinement (FAGER), an agentic framework that evaluates whether generated images correctly reflect visually verifiable facts grounded in or implied by the prompt, while also providing actionable feedback for improvement. FAGER first constructs a structured factual rubric by combining LLM-based fact proposal with reference-guided visual fact extraction and verification, then converts the rubric into question-answer pairs for VLM-based evaluation. To validate FAGER as a factuality metric, we introduce a Factual A/B test, which measures whether a metric prefers factual reference images over corresponding generated images. Across five datasets spanning science, history, products, culture, and knowledge-intensive concepts, FAGER consistently outperforms prior metrics on this test. We further show that FAGER can be used to refine T2I outputs in a fully training-free manner, yielding substantial factuality gains across datasets.

Automated grading systems have enabled scalable assessment for many response types, but handwritten mathematics remains a barrier due to the complexity of multi-step solutions. Vision-capable large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities here, yet their reliability in authentic instructional settings remains poorly understood. We present an empirical evaluation of an LLM-based grader for handwritten mathematical work using instructor-defined rubrics. Extending a prior pipeline for typed responses, we integrate transcription and rubric-based evaluation of photographic submissions within a single LLM call, evaluating on student work from two university STEM courses. Comparing AI grading decisions against human-assigned ground truth at the rubric-item level, we observe high overall accuracy, with most errors -- 87% in the best model -- attributable to transcription failures rather than rubric misapplication. We categorize common error modes, including image quality issues, hallucinated content, and incorrect handling of equivalent expressions. These findings highlight both the promise and limitations of LLM-based grading for handwritten mathematics, providing guidance for system design, prompt refinement, and deployment in educational settings.

Rubric-based reward shaping provides interpretable and editable reward signals for fine-tuning LLMs via reinforcement learning (RL), but existing adaptive rubric methods typically update criteria from local evidence such as the current batch or instance-level comparisons. This local view discards diagnostic information produced during training, making it difficult to track recurring failures, evaluate previous rubric edits, or raise standards once earlier criteria become saturated. We introduce AMARIS, A Memory-Augmented Rubric Improvement System that grounds rubric updates in longitudinal training evidence. AMARIS stores rollout analyses, step-level summaries, and rubric update records in a persistent evaluation memory, then retrieves recent and semantically relevant history to revise rubrics. We evaluate AMARIS across science, medicine, instruction following, and creative writing under both global and instance-specific rubric settings. AMARIS improves over static, local-adaptive, and memory-ablated baselines, such as +2.8 points on GPQA-Diamond and +2.2 points on IFBench over the strongest baselines, while analysis shows that memory reduces oscillatory rubric edits and supports a progression from early failure correction to later curriculum advancement. AMARIS runs asynchronously alongside the normal RL loop, reducing blocking latency relative to synchronous rubric updates.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is widely used to improve reasoning in large language models, but rewards only final-answer correctness with no supervision over intermediate steps. Rubric-based methods such as Rubrics as Rewards (RaR) introduce finer-grained supervision by scoring rollouts against structured criteria, yet the rubric scores are still aggregated into a single scalar applied to the entire response, causing three weaknesses: loss of multi-criterion structure, uniform supervision of correct and incorrect steps, and reward hacking through unbounded self-correction. On 1,000 problems, we find 18.2% of steps in correct-answer responses are wrong yet positively rewarded, while 49.9% of steps in incorrect-answer responses are correct yet penalized. We introduce Step-wise Rubrics as Rewards (SRaR), an RLVR framework that (i) uses an LLM judge to attribute each rubric item to a specific reasoning step, (ii) normalizes per-step rubric scores across rollouts so only steps whose quality varies produce a learning signal, and (iii) combines the per-step reward with the outcome reward through a decoupled advantage estimator that keeps the outcome baseline stable. We further build a 16K-problem rubric dataset by contrastively distilling rubric items from correct and flawed reasoning paths sampled from a strong model. Across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks, SRaR improves average accuracy over RaR by 3.57 points on Qwen3-8B and 2.75 points on Qwen3-32B, raises the Faithful Reasoning Rate on AIME 2025 from 34.5% to 46.7%, and reduces self-correction looping from 48.1% to 26.5%.

Adaptive learning refers to educational technologies that track learners' learning progress and adapt the instructional process based on individual learners' learning performance. It is increasingly recognized as critical for developing an effective learning support tool. Vision language models (VLMs) have seen adoption in mathematics education, and students have been using them as learning aids for personalized instruction. However, it is unknown whether VLMs have the ability to adapt to different learner profiles when providing mathematical instructions. Current VLMs lack a systematic evaluation framework for this adaptivity to different learner profiles in mathematics tutoring tasks. To address this gap, we draw on the learner model from the adaptive learning framework (Shute and Towle, 2018) and propose a learner model-based rubric. Our rubric formalizes adaptivity assessment into three aspects: cognitive aspects, motivational aspects, and complexity. We also evaluate two additional dimensions of VLM responses: correctness (of answers and solutions) and quality (of the response itself). Our experimental results show measurable differences in adaptivity across models and also reveal that current VLMs struggle to consistently produce learner model-based instructional responses, especially when receiving limited learner information.

LLM-powered coding agents spend the majority of their token budget reading repository files, yet much of the retrieved code is irrelevant to the task at hand. Existing learned pruners compress this context with a single-objective sequence labeler, collapsing all facets of code relevance into one score and one transition matrix. We show that this formulation creates a modeling bottleneck: a single CRF transition prior must serve heterogeneous retention patterns, including contiguous semantic spans and sparse structural support lines. We propose LaMR (Latent Multi-Rubric), a structured pruning framework that decomposes code relevance into two interpretable quality dimensions, semantic evidence and dependency support, each modeled by a dedicated CRF with dimension-specific transition dynamics. A mixture-of-experts gating network dynamically weights the per-rubric emissions conditioned on the query, and a final CRF layer on the fused emissions produces the aggregate keep-or-prune decision. To supervise each dimension without additional annotation cost, we derive multi-rubric labels from the existing training corpus via AST-based program analysis, simultaneously denoising the teacher's binary labels. By effectively filtering distracting noise, LaMR frequently matches or even outperforms unpruned full-context baselines. Experiments on four benchmarks (SWE-Bench Verified, SWE-QA, LCC, LongCodeQA) show that LaMR wins 12 of 16 head-to-head multi-turn comparisons. It saves up to 31% more tokens on multi-turn agent tasks and improves Exact Match by up to +3.5 on single-turn tasks, while performance is frequently enhanced by denoising the context, and any remaining drops are marginal.