Rubrics

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has enabled strong post-training gains in domains such as math and coding, though many open-ended settings rely on rubric-based rewards. We study reward hacking in rubric-based RL, where a policy is optimized against a training verifier but evaluated against a cross-family panel of three frontier judges, reducing dependence on any single evaluator. Our framework separates two sources of divergence: verifier failure, where the training verifier credits rubric criteria that reference verifiers reject, and rubric-design limitations, where even strong rubric-based verifiers favor responses that rubric-free judges rate worse overall. Across medical and science domains, weak verifiers produce large proxy-reward gains that do not transfer to the reference verifiers; exploitation grows over training and concentrates in recurring failures such as partial satisfaction of compound criteria, treating implicit content as explicit, and imprecise topical matching. Stronger verifiers substantially reduce, but do not eliminate, verifier exploitation. We also introduce a self-internalization gap, a verifier-free diagnostic based on policy log-probabilities, which tracks reference-verifier quality, detecting when the policy trained using the weak verifier stops improving. Finally, in our setting, stronger verification does not prevent reward hacking when the rubric leaves important failure modes unspecified: rubric-based verifiers prefer the RL checkpoint, while rubric-free judges prefer the base model. These disagreements coincide with gains concentrated in completeness and presence-based criteria, alongside declines in factual correctness, conciseness, relevance, and overall quality. Together, these results suggest that stronger verification reduces reward hacking, but does not by itself ensure that rubric gains correspond to broader quality gains.

The performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on downstream tasks is fundamentally constrained by the capabilities acquired during pre-training. However, traditional benchmarks like MMLU often fail to reflect a base model's plasticity in complex open-ended scenarios, leading to inefficient model selection. We address this by introducing a new task of predicting post-training potential - forecasting a base model's performance before post-training. We propose RuDE (Rubric-based Discriminative Evaluation), a unified framework that bypasses the generation gap of base models by leveraging response discrimination. Guided by our systematic 4C Taxonomy, RuDE constructs controlled contrastive pairs across diverse domains by fine-grained rubric violations. Extensive experiments demonstrate a correlation greater than 90% with post-training performance. Crucially, validation via Reinforcement Learning (RL) confirms that RuDE effectively identifies high-potential smaller models that outperform larger counterparts, offering a compute-efficient mechanism for foundation model development.

Image-to-code generation tests whether a vision-language model (VLM) can recover the structure of an image enough to express it as executable code. Existing benchmarks either focus on narrow visual domains, depend on paired executable reference code, or rely on generic rubrics that miss domain-specific reconstruction errors. We introduce Vision2Code, a reference-code-free benchmark and evaluation framework for multi-domain image-to-code generation. Vision2Code contains 2,169 test examples from 15 source datasets that span charts and plots, geometry, graphs, scientific imagery, documents, and 3D spatial scenes. Models generate executable programs, which we render and score against the source image using a VLM rater with dataset-specific rubrics and deterministic guardrails for severe semantic failures. We report render-success diagnostics that separate code execution failures from reconstruction quality. Human validation shows that this evaluation protocol aligns better with human judgments than either a generic visual rubric or embedding-similarity baselines. Across nine open-weight and proprietary models, we find that image-to-code performance is domain-dependent: leading models perform well on regular chart- and graph-like visuals but remain weak on spatial scenes, chemistry, documents, and circuit-style diagrams. Finally, we show that evaluator-filtered model outputs can serve as training data to improve image-to-code capability, with Qwen3.5-9B improving from 1.60 to 1.86 on the benchmark without paired source programs. Vision2Code provides a reproducible testbed for measuring, diagnosing, and improving image-to-code generation. Our code and data are publicly available at https://image2code.github.io/vision2code/.

Training deep research agents, namely systems that plan, search, evaluate evidence, and synthesize long-form reports, pushes reinforcement learning beyond the regime of verifiable rewards. Their outputs lack ground-truth answers, their trajectories span many tool-augmented decisions, and standard post-training offers little mechanism for turning past attempts into reusable experience. In this work, we argue that rubrics should serve not merely as final-answer evaluators, but as the shared interface that structures policy execution, judge feedback, and agent memory. Based on this view, we introduce RubricEM, a rubric-guided reinforcement learning framework that combines stagewise policy decomposition with reflection-based meta-policy evolution. RubricEM first makes research trajectories stage-aware by conditioning planning, evidence gathering, review, and synthesis on self-generated rubrics. It then assigns credit with Stage-Structured GRPO, which uses stagewise rubric judgments to provide denser semantic feedback for long-horizon optimization. In parallel, RubricEM trains a shared-backbone reflection meta-policy that distills judged trajectories into reusable rubric-grounded guidance for future attempts. The resulting RubricEM-8B achieves strong performance across four long-form research benchmarks, outperforming comparable open models and approaching proprietary deep-research systems. Beyond final performance, we perform thorough analyses to understand the key ingredients of RubricEM.

Iterative self-refinement is a popular inference-time reliability technique, but its effectiveness in code-mode tool use depends heavily on the structure of the feedback signal: unstructured critique helps inconsistently across models, and even revision with real execution feedback improves only modestly. The dominant failures are inter-tool contract violations (wrong output shape, incorrect tool routing, broken argument provenance) that run to completion without raising errors, making runtime feedback insufficient. We introduce RubricRefine, a training-free method for pre-execution contract checking that generates task- and registry-specific rubrics, scores candidate code against explicit contract checks, and iteratively repairs failures before any execution occurs. RubricRefine reaches $0.86$, averaged across seven models, on M3ToolEval with zero execution attempts, improving over prior inference-time baselines at lower latency than rubric-guided reranking. Performance remains flat on the predominantly single-step API-Bank, consistent with the method's reliance on inter-tool contract structure. Results on AppWorld demonstrate that our method maintains an advantage in the multi-turn setting. Because the rubric is derived from the supplied tool documentation, the method's advantage survives incomplete documentation but reverses under incorrect documentation. A rubric-category ablation identifies which rules are load-bearing, and top-bin calibration enables early stopping even where aggregate calibration is poor.

Inpatient clinical reasoning is a sequential decision under partial observability: the clinician sees the admission so far and must choose the next action whose downstream consequences are not yet visible. Existing clinical-LLM evaluations and RL rewards signals collapse this into closed-form retrieval, clinical journey leakage, or unanchored LLM-as-judge scoring. We introduce CLR-voyance, a framework that reformulates inpatient reasoning as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) and supervises it with rewards that are simultaneously outcome-grounded and clinician-validated. We instantiate the formulation as CLR-POMDP, which partitions successful patient journeys into a policy-visible past and an oracle-only future. Using the past information, an oracle LLM generates a case-specific query-answer pair, and the first adaptive rubric for clinical reasoning which is verifiable in the future of the patient journey. These rubrics are used for both post-training and evaluation of models for inpatient clinical reasoning. We post-train Qwen3-8B and MedGemma-4B with GRPO followed by model merging, yielding state-of-the-art inpatient clinical reasoning while retaining generalist capabilities. CLR-voyance-8B achieves 84.91% on CLR-POMDP, ahead of frontier medical reasoning models like GPT-5 (77.83%) and MedGemma-27B (66.66%) and has comparable or better performance on existing medical benchmarks. To ensure a clinically meaningful setting, we conduct a large-scale clinician alignment study, where physicians curate per-case rubrics, grade candidate responses, and provide blinded pairwise preferences of model reasoning. This study provides insights on clinical LLM-as-a-judge and clinical preference-model selection, which can inform the community at large. CLR-voyance has been deployed for 6+ months at a partner public hospital, drafting thousands of reasoning-heavy inpatient notes.

Aligning Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) requires reliable reward models, yet existing single-step evaluators can suffer from lazy judging, exploiting language priors over fine-grained visual verification. While rubric-based evaluation mitigates these biases in text-only settings, extending it to multimodal tasks is bottlenecked by the complexity of visual reasoning. The critical differences between responses often depend on instance-specific visual details. Robust evaluation requires dynamically synthesizing rubrics that isolate spatial and factual discrepancies. To address this, we introduce $\textbf{DeltaRubric}$, an approach that reformulates multimodal preference evaluation as a plan-and-execute process within a single MLLM. DeltaRubric operates in two steps: acting first as a $\textit{Disagreement Planner}$, the model generates a neutral, instance-specific verification checklist. Transitioning into a $\textit{Checklist Verifier}$, it executes these self-generated checks against the image and question to produce the final grounded judgment. We formulate DeltaRubric as a multi-role reinforcement learning problem, jointly optimizing planning and verification capabilities. Validated on Qwen3-VL 4B and 8B Instruct models, DeltaRubric achieves solid empirical gains. For instance, On VL-RewardBench, it improves base model overall accuracy by $\textbf{+22.6}$ (4B) and $\textbf{+18.8}$ (8B) points, largely outperforming standard no-rubric baselines. The results demonstrate that decomposing evaluation into structured, verifiable steps leads to more reliable and generalizable multimodal reward modeling.

Aligning multimodal generative models with human preferences demands reward signals that respect the compositional, multi-dimensional structure of human judgment. Prevailing RLHF approaches reduce this structure to scalar or pairwise labels, collapsing nuanced preferences into opaque parametric proxies and exposing vulnerabilities to reward hacking. While recent Rubrics-as-Reward (RaR) methods attempt to recover this structure through explicit criteria, generating rubrics that are simultaneously reliable, scalable, and data-efficient remains an open problem. We introduce Auto-Rubric as Reward (ARR), a framework that reframes reward modeling from implicit weight optimization to explicit, criteria-based decomposition. Before any pairwise comparison, ARR externalizes a VLM's internalized preference knowledge as prompt-specific rubrics, translating holistic intent into independently verifiable quality dimensions. This conversion of implicit preference structure into inspectable, interpretable constraints substantially suppresses evaluation biases including positional bias, enabling both zero-shot deployment and few-shot conditioning on minimal supervision. To extend these gains into generative training, we propose Rubric Policy Optimization (RPO), which distills ARR's structured multi-dimensional evaluation into a robust binary reward, replacing opaque scalar regression with rubric-conditioned preference decisions that stabilize policy gradients. On text-to-image generation and image editing benchmarks, ARR-RPO outperforms pairwise reward models and VLM judges, demonstrating that explicitly externalizing implicit preference knowledge into structured rubrics achieves more reliable, data-efficient multimodal alignment, revealing that the bottleneck is the absence of a factorized interface, not a deficit of knowledge.

We argue that decomposing reward into weighted, verifiable criteria and using an LLM judge to score them provides a partial-credit optimization signal: instead of a binary outcome or a single holistic score, each response is graded along multiple task-specific criteria. We formalize \emph{rubric-grounded reinforcement learning (RL)}: a framework in which the policy is optimized against a structured, multi-criterion reward produced by a frozen LLM judge that conditions on auxiliary grounding the policy never sees. We instantiate the framework by deriving rubrics from an Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI)-derived corpus of roughly 100,000 scientific and technical documents and training Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). With GRPO-based training, the model achieves $71.7\%$ normalized reward on held-out rubric evaluation. The GRPO-tuned policy also improves over the base model on four reasoning benchmarks not derived from the training corpus -- GSM8K, MATH, GPQA Main, and GPQA Diamond. These results provide evidence that structured, document-grounded rewards can improve held-out rubric performance and induce transferable reasoning behaviors beyond the corpus used to construct the training environment.

On-policy distillation (OPD) is a powerful paradigm for model alignment, yet its reliance on teacher logits restricts its application to white-box scenarios. We contend that structured semantic rubrics can serve as a scalable alternative to teacher logits, enabling OPD using only teacher-generated responses. To prove it, we introduce ROPD, a simple yet foundational framework for rubric-based OPD. Specifically, ROPD induces prompt-specific rubrics from teacher-student contrasts, and then utilizes these rubrics to score the student rollouts for on-policy optimization. Empirically, ROPD outperforms the advanced logit-based OPD methods across most scenarios, and achieving up to a 10x gain in sample efficiency. These results position rubric-based OPD as a flexible, black-box-compatible alternative to the prevailing logit-based OPD, offering a simple yet strong baseline for scalable distillation across proprietary and open-source LLMs. Code is available at https://github.com/Peregrine123/ROPD_official.

While many studies of Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning capabilities emphasize mathematical or technical tasks, few address reasoning about social concepts: the abstract ideas shaping social norms, culture, and institutions. This understudied capability is essential for modern models acting as social agents, yet no systematic evaluation methodology targets it. We introduce SCRuB (Social Concept Reasoning under Rubric-Based Evaluation), a framework designed for this setting of task indeterminacy. Our goal is to measure the degree to which a model reasons about social concepts with the depth and critical rigor of a human expert. SCRuB proceeds in three phases: prompt construction from established sources, response generation by experts and models, and comparative evaluation using a five-dimensional critical thinking rubric. To enable generalization of the pipeline, we introduce a Panel of Disciplinary Perspectives ensemble validated against independent expert judges. We release SCRuBEval (n=4,711 evaluation prompts) and SCRuBAnnotations (300 expert-authored responses and 150 expert comparative judgments from 45 PhD-level scholars). Our results show that frontier models consistently outperform human experts across all five rubric dimensions. Across 1,170 pairwise comparisons, expert judges ranked a model response first in 80.8% of judgments and preferred model responses overall 74.4% of the time. Ultimately, this study provides the first expert-grounded demonstration of evaluation saturation for social concept reasoning: the single-turn exam-style format has reached its ceiling for models and humans alike.

Autoraters, also referred to as LLM-as-judges, are increasingly used for evaluation and automated content moderation. However, there is limited statistical analysis of how modifications in a rubric presented to both humans and autoraters affect their score agreement. Rubrics that ask for an overall or \emph{holistic} judgment - for example, rating the quality'' of an essay - may be inconsistently interpreted due to the complexity or subjectivity of the criteria. Conversely, rubrics can ask for \emph{analytic} judgments, which decompose assessment criteria - for example, quality'' into fluency'' and organization''. While these rubrics can be edited to improve the individual accuracy of both human and automated scoring, this approach may result in disagreement between the two scores, or with the associated holistic judgment. Designing and deploying reliable autoraters requires understanding not just the relationship between human and autorater annotations but how that relationship changes as holistic or analytic judgments are elicited. The results indicate that rubric edits providing representative examples and additional context, and reducing positional bias in the rubric increased human-autorater agreement, while higher rubric complexity and conservative aggregation methods tended to decrease it. The findings from the automatic essay scoring and instruction-following evaluation domains suggest that practitioners should carefully analyze domain- and rubric-specific performance to move towards higher human-autorater agreement.

Language models encode substantial evaluative knowledge from pretraining, yet current post-training methods rely on external supervision (human annotations, proprietary models, or scalar reward models) to produce reward signals. Each imposes a ceiling. Human judgment cannot supervise capabilities beyond its own, proprietary APIs create dependencies, and verifiable rewards cover only domains with ground-truth answers. Self-improvement from a model's own evaluative capacity is a reward source that scales with the model itself, yet remains largely untapped by current methods. We introduce EVOLM, a post-training method that structures this capacity into explicit discriminative rubrics and uses them as training signal. EVOLM trains two capabilities within a single language model in alternation: (1) a rubric generator producing instance-specific evaluation criteria optimized for discriminative utility, which maximizes a small frozen judge's ability to distinguish preferred from dispreferred responses; and (2) a policy trained using those rubric-conditioned scores as reward. All preference signals are constructed from the policy's own outputs via temporal contrast with earlier checkpoints, requiring no human annotation or external supervision. EVOLM trains a Qwen3-8B model to generate rubrics that outperform GPT-4.1 on RewardBench-2 by 25.7%. The co-trained policy achieves 69.3% average on the OLMo3-Adapt suite, outperforming policies trained with GPT-4.1 prompted rubrics by 3.9% and with the state-of-the-art 8B reward model SkyWork-RM by 16%. Overall, EVOLM demonstrates that structuring a model's evaluative capacity into co-evolving discriminative rubrics enables self-improvement without external supervision.

Despite rapid advances in photorealistic video generation, real-world applications such as filmmaking require video aesthetics, e.g., harmonious colors and cinematic lighting, beyond visual fidelity. Prior work on visual aesthetics largely focuses on images, often reducing aesthetics to coarse definitions, e.g., visual pleasure, without a rigorous and systematic evaluation. To improve video aesthetics, we propose a hierarchical rubric that decomposes video aesthetics into three core dimensions, Visual Aesthetics (VA), Visual Fidelity (VF), and Visual Plausibility (VP), with 15 fine-grained criteria, e.g., shot composition. This framework enables a large-scale expert-annotated preference dataset and an evaluation benchmark, AesVideo-Bench, containing about 2500 video pairs with expert annotations on VA, VF, and VP. We then build a family of Video Aesthetic Reward Models (AesRM): AesRM-Base, which directly predicts pairwise preferences on these dimensions to provide efficient post-training rewards, and AesRM-CoT, which additionally generates CoT aligned with all 15 criteria to improve assessment interpretability. Specifically, we train AesRM with a three-stage progressive scheme: (1) Atomic Aesthetic Capability Learning, which strengthens AesRM's recognition of fundamental aesthetic concepts, e.g., accurately identifying centered composition; (2) Cold-Start, aligning the model with structured reasoning protocols; and (3) GRPO, further improving evaluation accuracy. To enhance AesRM-CoT, we additionally propose self-consistency-based CoT synthesis to improve CoT quality and design CoT-based process rewards during GRPO. Extensive experiments show AesRM outperforms baselines on multiple aesthetics benchmarks and is more robust, with lower position bias. Finally, we align Wan2.2 with AesRM and observe clear aesthetic gains over existing aesthetic reward models.

As LLMs become credible readers of earnings calls, investor-relations Q&A, guidance, and disclosure language, supervised financial NLP benchmarks increasingly function as decision evidence for model selection and deployment. A hidden assumption is that gold labels make such evidence objective. This assumption breaks down when the benchmark ruler itself is sensitive to rubric wording, metric choice, or aggregation policy. We study this measurement risk on Japanese Financial Implicit-Commitment Recognition (JF-ICR; a pinned 253-item test split x 4 frontier LLMs x 5 rubrics x 3 temperatures x 5 ordinal metrics). Three findings follow. First, rubric wording materially changes model-assigned labels: R2--R3 agreement ranges from 70.0% to 83.4%, with the dominant movement near the +1 / 0 implicit-commitment boundary. This pattern is consistent with a pragmatic-boundary interpretation, but is not a validated linguistic-causality claim because the present rubric variants confound semantics, examples, and verbosity. Second, not every metric remains informative under the JF-ICR class distribution. Within-one accuracy is too easy because near misses receive credit and the majority class dominates; worst-class accuracy is too noisy because the rarest class has only two examples. Exact accuracy, macro-F1, and weighted \k{appa} are therefore the identifiable metrics under our operational rule. Third, ranking claims become more defensible only after this metric-identifiability audit: Bradley--Terry, Borda, and Ranked Pairs agree on the identifiable metric subset, while the full five-metric sweep produces disagreement on the closest pair. The contribution is not a new leaderboard, but a reporting discipline for supervised financial benchmarks whose gold labels exist and whose evaluation ruler still requires governance.

As Competency-Based Education (CBE) is gaining traction around the world, the shift from marks-based assessment to qualitative competency mapping is a manual challenge for educators. This paper tackles the bottleneck issue by suggesting a "Human-in-the-Loop" benchmarking framework to assess the effectiveness of multiple LLMs in automating secondary-level mathematics assessment. Based on the Grade 10 Optional Mathematics curriculum in Nepal, we created a multi-dimensional rubric for four topics and four cross-cutting competencies: Comprehension, Knowledge, Operational Fluency, and Behavior and Correlation. The multi-provider ensemble, consisted of open-weight models -- Eagle (Llama 3.1-8B) and Orion (Llama 3.3-70B) -- and proprietary frontier models Nova (Gemini 2.5 Flash) and Lyra (Gemini 3 Pro), was benchmarked against a ground truth defined by two senior mathematics faculty members (kappa_w = 0.8652). The findings show a marked "Architecture-compatibility gap". Although the Gemini-based Mixture-of-Experts (Sparse MoE) models achieved "Fair Agreement" (kappa_w ~ 0.38), the larger Orion (70B) model exhibited "No Agreement" (kappa_w = -0.0261), suggesting that architectural compliance with instruction constraints outweighs the scale of raw parameters in rubric-constrained tasks. We conclude that while LLMs are not yet suitable for autonomous certification, they provide high-value assistive support for preliminary evidence extraction within a "Human-in-the-Loop" framework.

Objective. Clinical AI documentation systems require evaluation methodologies that are clinically valid, economically viable, and sensitive to iterative changes. Methods requiring expert review per scoring instance are too slow and expensive for safe, iterative deployment. We present a case-specific, clinician-authored rubric methodology for clinical AI evaluation and examine whether LLM-generated rubrics can approximate clinician agreement. Materials and Methods. Twenty clinicians authored 1,646 rubrics for 823 clinical cases (736 real-world, 87 synthetic) across primary care, psychiatry, oncology, and behavioral health. Each rubric was validated by confirming that an LLM-based scoring agent consistently scored clinician-preferred outputs higher than rejected ones. Seven versions of an EHR-embedded AI agent for clinicians were evaluated across all cases. Results. Clinician-authored rubrics discriminated effectively between high- and low-quality outputs (median score gap: 82.9%) with high scoring stability (median range: 0.00%). Median scores improved from 84% to 95%. In later experiments, clinician-LLM ranking agreement (tau: 0.42-0.46) matched or exceeded clinician-clinician agreement (tau: 0.38-0.43), attributable to both ceiling compression and LLM rubric improvement. Discussion. This convergence supports incorporating LLM rubrics alongside clinician-authored ones. At roughly 1,000 times lower cost, LLM rubrics enable substantially greater evaluation coverage, while continued clinical authorship grounds evaluation in expert judgment. Ceiling compression poses a methodological challenge for future inter-rater agreement studies. Conclusion. Case-specific rubrics offer a path for clinical AI evaluation that preserves expert judgment while enabling automation at three orders lower cost. Clinician-authored rubrics establish the baseline against which LLM rubrics are validated.

Self-play has recently emerged as a promising paradigm for post-training Large Language Models (LLMs). In self-play, the target LLM creates the task input (e.g., a question), which it then addresses itself by producing a task output (e.g., an answer). A reward model evaluates the output, and the rewards are used to train the LLM, typically via Reinforcement Learning (RL). A key benefit of self-play for post-training LLMs is its minimal supervision costs: self-play avoids the need for high-quality input-output pairs traditionally constructed by humans or expensive proprietary models. Existing work, however, explores self-play only for verifiable tasks, such as math and coding, for which objective ground truth is available and easily checkable. In this paper, we seek to extend self-play to more realistic open-ended tasks. We propose POP, a self-play framework that uses the same LLM to synthesize evaluation rubrics along with each input-output pair. The rubric is used to evaluate outputs and train the model. Crucially, we ground the framework on a content-rich pretraining corpus to (1) enable an exploitable generation-verification gap and reduce reward hacking, and (2) prevent mode collapse. On Qwen-2.5-7B, POP increases performance of both the pretrained base model and instruction-tuned model on multiple tasks ranging from long-form healthcare QA to creative writing and instruction following.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong promise in healthcare applications. Yet deploying general-purpose models in real-world settings remains difficult due to data privacy constraints, inference costs, and limited suitability for edge or on-device use. These challenges motivate the development of smaller, more efficient models that require robust post-training strategies to ensure reliable medical reasoning. In this work, we investigate Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) for post-training LLMs on heart-focused medical question answering with rubric-based supervision derived from RaR-Medicine. We propose a Variance-Aware Reward Framework that extends the Explicit Aggregation and Implicit Aggregation strategies of Rubrics as Rewards by replacing weighted binary criterion aggregation and single overall Likert-style scoring with continuous analytical reward functions derived from criterion-level rubric outcomes. This formulation provides richer optimization signals for feedback that is sparse, multi-criteria, and difficult to verify automatically, and enables more stable on-policy reinforcement learning. On a held-out heart-related subset of HealthBench, our best GRPO variant improves accuracy from 0.362 to 0.502 and F1 from 0.532 to 0.668 relative to the Qwen3-14B base model, while remaining competitive with GPT-OSS-120B (0.508 accuracy, 0.674 F1). Our findings show that carefully designed rubric-based rewards provide a practical strategy for improving heart-focused medical question answering in LLMs, with potential to extend to other rubric-based tasks.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) and Rubrics as Rewards (RaR) have driven strong gains in domains with clear correctness signals and even in subjective domains by synthesizing evaluation criteria from ideal reference answers. But many real-world tasks admit multiple valid outputs and lack the single ideal answer that rubric generation depends on. We identify this reference-free setting as a gap in current post-training methods and propose Implicit Error Counting (IEC) to fill it. Instead of checking what a response gets right against a rubric, IEC enumerates what it gets wrong, applying severity-weighted scores across task-relevant axes and converting them into calibrated per-aspect rewards. We show that naïve explicit enumeration is too noisy for stable optimization, and that two design choices: implicit score emission and group calibration are necessary to make error counting a reliable reward. As a case study, we validate IEC on virtual try-on (VTO), a domain that is simultaneously too constrained for holistic scoring and too permissive for rubric-based evaluation: subtle garment errors are unacceptable, yet many output variations are correct. We introduce Cascaded Error Counting (CEC) as an evaluation metric, which tracks human preferences well (60% top-1 vs. 30% others), and curate Mismatch-DressCode (MDressBench), a benchmark with maximal attribute mismatch to stress-test reward designs. On MDressBench, IEC outperforms RaR across all metrics (CEC: 5.31 vs. 5.60 on flat references; 5.20 vs. 5.53 on non-flat). On VITON-HD and DressCode, IEC matches or surpasses six baselines on 6 of 8 perceptual metrics. These results suggest that when ideal answers are unavailable, counting errors provide a stronger signal than constructing rubrics.

Evaluation and alignment pipelines for large language models increasingly rely on LLM-based judges, whose behavior is guided by natural-language rubrics and validated on benchmarks. We identify a previously under-recognized vulnerability in this workflow, which we term Rubric-Induced Preference Drift (RIPD). Even when rubric edits pass benchmark validation, they can still produce systematic and directional shifts in a judge's preferences on target domains. Because rubrics serve as a high-level decision interface, such drift can emerge from seemingly natural, criterion-preserving edits and remain difficult to detect through aggregate benchmark metrics or limited spot-checking. We further show this vulnerability can be exploited through rubric-based preference attacks, in which benchmark-compliant rubric edits steer judgments away from a fixed human or trusted reference on target domains, systematically inducing RIPD and reducing target-domain accuracy up to 9.5% (helpfulness) and 27.9% (harmlessness). When these judgments are used to generate preference labels for downstream post-training, the induced bias propagates through alignment pipelines and becomes internalized in trained policies. This leads to persistent and systematic drift in model behavior. Overall, our findings highlight evaluation rubrics as a sensitive and manipulable control interface, revealing a system-level alignment risk that extends beyond evaluator reliability alone. The code is available at: https://github.com/ZDCSlab/Rubrics-as-an-Attack-Surface. Warning: Certain sections may contain potentially harmful content that may not be appropriate for all readers.

Evaluating agentic AI on open-ended professional tasks faces a fundamental dilemma between rigor and flexibility. Static rubrics provide rigorous, reproducible assessment but fail to accommodate diverse valid response strategies, while LLM-as-a-judge approaches adapt to individual responses yet suffer from instability and bias. Human experts address this dilemma by combining domain-grounded principles with dynamic, claim-level assessment. Inspired by this process, we propose JADE, a two-layer evaluation framework. Layer 1 encodes expert knowledge as a predefined set of evaluation skills, providing stable evaluation criteria. Layer 2 performs report-specific, claim-level evaluation to flexibly assess diverse reasoning strategies, with evidence-dependency gating to invalidate conclusions built on refuted claims. Experiments on BizBench show that JADE improves evaluation stability and reveals critical agent failure modes missed by holistic LLM-based evaluators. We further demonstrate strong alignment with expert-authored rubrics and effective transfer to HealthBench and DR.BENCH, covering medical and 10-domain professional evaluation settings. Code and data are available at https://github.com/smiling-world/JADE.

Rubric-based text evaluation increasingly relies on large language models (LLMs) as scalable judges, yet frozen black-box models can interpret the same criteria inconsistently, produce score attributions that are difficult to audit, and map judgments poorly onto human scoring scales. We define this challenge as criteria transfer: translating human rubric intent into a stable, auditable inference-time scoring protocol. We introduce Rulers, which locks a task-level rubric specification, executes it through structured, evidence-grounded judgments, and calibrates the resulting signals to human score boundaries. Across four rubric-governed benchmarks and multiple frozen backbone models, Rulers achieves stronger agreement with human scores in most evaluated settings, while better matching empirical score distributions and remaining more stable under semantically equivalent rubric perturbations. Calibration controls and component ablations show that these gains cannot be attributed to post-hoc alignment alone, but depend on the combination of fixed criteria, traceable evidence, and calibrated score interpretation. These findings suggest that reliable LLM judging requires faithfully operationalizing human evaluation standards rather than relying on prompt-level scoring alone. Our code is available at https://github.com/LabRAI/Rulers.git.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has recently emerged as a promising approach for aligning text-to-image generative models with human preferences. A key challenge, however, lies in designing effective and interpretable rewards. Existing methods often rely on either composite metrics (e.g., CLIP, OCR, and realism scores) with fixed weights or a single scalar reward distilled from human preference models, which can limit interpretability and flexibility. We propose RubricRL, a simple and general framework for rubric-based reward design that offers greater interpretability, composability, and user control. Instead of using a black-box scalar signal, RubricRL dynamically constructs a structured rubric for each prompt--a decomposable checklist of fine-grained visual criteria such as object correctness, attribute accuracy, OCR fidelity, and realism--tailored to the input text. Each criterion is independently evaluated by a multimodal judge (e.g., o4-mini), and a prompt-adaptive weighting mechanism emphasizes the most relevant dimensions. This design not only produces interpretable and modular supervision signals for policy optimization (e.g., GRPO or PPO), but also enables users to directly adjust which aspects to reward or penalize. Experiments with an autoregressive text-to-image model demonstrate that RubricRL improves prompt faithfulness, visual detail, and generalizability, while offering a flexible and extensible foundation for interpretable RL alignment across text-to-image architectures.

Deep Research Agents (DRA) aim to help users search the web, synthesize information, and deliver comprehensive investigative reports. Prior benchmarks often either under-evaluate a system's ability to produce meaningful insights and high-quality writing, or adopt coarse or LLM-defined criteria that are hard to verify and can diverge from human expert judgment. To address these issues, we introduce Deep Research Bench II, a new benchmark for evaluating DRAs. It contains 132 grounded research tasks across 22 domains; for each task, an agent must produce a research report that is evaluated by a set of 9,430 fine-grained binary rubrics in total, covering three dimensions: information recall, analysis, and presentation. All rubrics are derived from carefully selected expert-written investigative articles and are constructed through a four-stage LLM+human pipeline that combines automatic extraction with over 400 human-hours of expert review, ensuring that the criteria are verifiable and aligned with human expert judgment. We evaluate several state-of-the-art deep-research agents on Deep Research Bench II and find that even the strongest models satisfy fewer than 50% of the rubrics, revealing a substantial gap between current DRAs and human experts. We release the benchmark, evaluation scripts, and all rubrics at https://github.com/imlrz/DeepResearch-Bench-II to facilitate future research on deep-rearch agents.