Rubric-Based Evaluation

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

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

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.

Creating and editing slides is a rich, multimodal activity that is ubiquitous in professional and educational settings, making it an ideal testbed for real-world computer-use agents. Microsoft PowerPoint is among the most widely adopted and feature-rich environments for presentation creation. We introduce PPT-Eval, a benchmark of 120 PowerPoint tasks across 12 files that cover both content creation and presentation editing scenarios, organized by difficulty. A central challenge in this domain is evaluation: tasks are complex, multimodal, and often admit many valid solutions. Moreover, today's agents frequently make only partial progress, which binary success metrics fail to capture. To address this, we design a robust evaluation framework to help create task-specific rubrics for PowerPoint tasks, taking inspiration from and building on past works for rubric-based evaluation. These rubrics award partial credit for intermediate steps, penalize unnecessary changes and poor aesthetics, and provide natural language feedback. This nuanced approach proves highly effective, achieving a Kendall's τ-b correlation of 0.77 with human judgments. We find that existing frontier agents still struggle with solving PowerPoint tasks, with strong models like Claude-4.5-Opus achieving only a 45% success rate and an average partial score of 57%. The benchmark is located at: https://microsoft.github.io/ppteval.

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.

We introduce PerceptionRubrics, a rubric-based evaluation framework that addresses the gap between saturated benchmark scores and real-world brittleness. Shifting evaluation from holistic semantic matching to rigorous atomic auditing, PerceptionRubrics pairs 1,038 information-dense images with over 10,000 instance-specific rubrics. These criteria are derived from golden captions constructed via a novel Circular Peer-Review consensus pipeline and then distilled into a dual-stream system of Must-Right (essential facts) and Easy-Wrong (fine-grained details) rubrics. Crucially, PerceptionRubrics implements a Gated Scoring mechanism: unlike linear averages, failure on mandatory visual facts triggers sharp binary penalties. Extensive evaluation yields critical insights: (1) The Reliability Gap: models often verify fragmented elements correctly yet fail strict conjunctive constraints, exposing brittleness in dense domains; (2) Open-Closed Stratification: contrary to reasoning trends, we reveal a persistent 8% perception deficit between open-source and proprietary frontiers; and (3) Human-Aligned Rigor: our gated metrics substantially out-align conventional benchmarks, validating that strict perceptual fidelity is the prerequisite for reliable generation.

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/.

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.

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.

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.

Human creativity has emerged as a critical competency in the era of large language models. Assessing creativity in complex, open-ended environments is a grand challenge in data mining, currently hindered by a reliance on standardized simple tasks and the scarcity of fine-grained expert data. As an ecologically valid assessment context, debate reflects multiple dimensions of creativity, encompassing both divergent thinking and convergent thinking. Moreover, debate is a data-rich domain, with a large volume of publicly accessible materials. Current mainstream automated scoring methods are poorly suited to complex settings such as debate, and therefore still rely on costly human evaluation. To this end, this paper proposes DEFINED, a data-efficient computational framework for fine-grained creativity assessment in debate scenarios. DEFINED operationalizes debate creativity through a hierarchical eight-dimensional metric system, implemented via a pre-trained autoregressive language model with a hierarchical scoring head that supports both fine-grained and coarse-grained evaluation. Statements and their associated expert scores were obtained from authentic debate competitions, and a constrained data augmentation strategy was employed to address the elite bias inherent in the original data. DEFINED adopts a mixed-granularity training strategy enabling robust learning from limited fine-grained supervision annotated by trained graduate experts. To rigorously validate ecological validity beyond synthetic benchmarks, we incorporate an empirical study with debate-naive participants, utilizing these authentic data to serve as a qualitative case study for mid-to-low proficiency populations. Across our evaluation protocol, our scoring model achieves accurate and stable scoring, outperforming prompt-based large language model evaluators and existing debate scoring methods.

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.

Reliable rubric grading requires more than accurate score prediction. Each judgement must be grounded in the mark scheme and evidence from the student answer. Existing credit-assignment and intervention methods, primarily designed for self-contained reasoning tasks such as mathematics reasoning, struggle in this setting because they do not identify where grading reasoning goes wrong or how the model's belief about the final mark changes during reasoning. We propose Evidence-Diagnosed Intervention Training (EDIT), a two-phase framework for training more rubric-faithful LLM graders. First, EDIT-SFT locates problematic reasoning steps using internal model signals: posterior belief over the final mark and input-grounding scores. It then revises only these local steps with help from a rubric checklist. Second, EDIT-RL calibrates the grader with belief-guided reward shaping, penalising large harmful belief drifts while still allowing helpful exploration. Experiments on two real-world, multi-subject grading benchmarks demonstrate that EDIT consistently outperforms strong supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning baselines on both in-domain and out-of-domain splits, with ablation studies confirming that internal-state diagnostics drive these gains. Under deterministic rubric-edit interventions, EDIT-SFT is the most rule-responsive of all evaluated systems, and EDIT-RL largely retains this responsiveness while improving accuracy.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for education requires measuring how models teach, not only what they know. Existing benchmarks emphasize domain-general correctness or depend on manually designed rubrics that scale poorly to long-tail pedagogical scenarios. We introduce Elmes*, an end-to-end framework for constructing, refining, and applying fine-grained scenario-specific rubrics. Elmes* combines a declarative multi-agent engine for teacher--student--judge interactions with SceneGen, a self-evolving module that co-optimizes evaluation criteria and test data from expert-defined pedagogical dimensions. Using Elmes*, we build Edu-330, covering 330 scenarios across 11 subjects, 3 grade bands, and 10 task types, with over 1{,}000 second-level indicators. Experiments on Edu-330 and four expert-authored gold-standard scenarios show that educational capability is multidimensional: top-tier LLMs differ mainly in creativity and values integration, knowledge-strong models may fail at Socratic scaffolding, and the education-specialized InnoSpark achieves the best human-evaluated average score. LLM judges preserve human-comparable rankings with much lower scoring variance, but exhibit judge-specific biases such as self-preference. Ablations show that expert-scored few-shot anchoring improves human--LLM alignment, while reasoning enforcement and greedy decoding are model-dependent. Elmes* thus provides scalable diagnostic infrastructure for pedagogically grounded LLM evaluation.

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.

Financial-research answers are decision-relevant only when another analyst can audit how they were produced: which source was chosen, which period and accounting definition were used, which assumptions were made, and how the calculation was performed. Existing finance benchmarks largely evaluate isolated subskills or final answers, leaving the auditable derivation itself under-measured. We introduce BigFinanceBench, a 928-item expert-authored benchmark of open-ended financial-research tasks in which each item pairs a ground-truth reference answer with a point-weighted rubric that decomposes the derivation into independently checkable steps. BigFinanceBench is workflow-grounded in that it evaluates the full derivation rather than only the final output. Across 36,241 rubric points, the benchmark supports partial-credit evaluation and localization of failures across the analyst workflow. Evaluating ten current frontier and open-weight agents, we find substantial headroom: the best system reaches only 58.8% rubric score, final-answer accuracy is a useful but lossy proxy for derivation quality, and model capability varies non-uniformly across financial workflows.

This paper investigates rubric-aware, multitask fine-tuning of transformer models for automated grading of introductory C++ programming assignments, with the goal of producing grade predictions that better reflect instructor grading behavior than general-purpose LLMs. Using multi-semester CS1 data, student submissions are paired with numeric scores, letter-grade buckets, and assignment rubrics, then preprocessed into unified sequences for transformer input. A BART encoder-decoder with LoRA adaptation is trained to jointly predict numeric grades and grade buckets, augmented with a distribution-matching term to align predicted and empirical grade distributions, an evaluation dimension often overlooked in prior work. Experiments compare single-task and multitask training, hard one-hot versus fuzzy and boundary-based soft labels, and rubric versus no-rubric conditions, with additional T5 and pairwise-pretrained variants. Results show that multitask BART with boundary-based soft labels and rubric context achieves lower mean absolute error and stronger grade-distribution alignment than single-task, hard-label, or code-only baselines. Fully fine-tuned T5 further improves distributional fidelity, while pairwise pretraining reduces numeric error at the cost of minority-class sensitivity. Collectively, the findings suggest that calibration-aware, rubric-guided training produces more instructor-like grading behavior than accuracy-optimized alternatives.

Clinical AI evaluation increasingly delegates scoring to large language models (LLMs) acting as AI raters, yet their scoring behavior across evaluation conditions has not been quantitatively characterized. We address this gap through a factorial study of AI rater behavior in adult type 2 diabetes (T2D) pharmacotherapy at 12-month outpatient follow-up, a clinical task involving complex decision-making operationalized across seven evaluation questions. Four open-source LLMs served simultaneously as clinical decision support system (CDSS) models and AI raters. Each CDSS output was scored under two scoring protocols: a rubric-anchored Gold Rubric (GR) protocol incorporating a patient-specific rubric, and a rubric-free Non Gold Rubric (Non-GR) protocol. Linear mixed effects models crossed the scoring protocol factor with five design factors -- CDSS model, CDSS prompt configuration (document-referenced generation [DRG] vs.\ Baseline), rater model, prompt character, and prompt type -- and estimated main effects together with their protocol interactions. Across all questions, AI raters yielded consistently higher scores within a very narrow range (74--78 points on average) under Non-GR compared to those under GR (7.69 to 49.64 points lower mean scores; 1.68 to 3.67 times wider interquartile ranges). Within each question, GR amplified the AI rater's discrimination between DRG and Baseline CDSS outputs by factors of 1.76 to 5.10, while also revealing substantial behavioral variation across rater models that Non-GR suppressed. These findings support rubric anchoring as the scoring protocol that preserves discriminative power in clinical AI evaluation; rubric-free scoring cannot substitute when questions require patient-specific or jurisdiction-specific criteria that rater models cannot infer from parametric knowledge alone.

The rapid advancement of instruction-guided audio generation has highlighted the critical need for robust alignment evaluation. Current automated evaluation methods heavily rely on holistic scoring from general-purpose large language models, which struggle to decouple complex instructions, lack interpretability, and fail to capture fine-grained attribute mismatches. To address this, we introduce a novel dynamic rubric-based evaluation paradigm that adaptively decomposes complex audio captions into a variable number of independent, verifiable binary rubric items. To rigorously benchmark this capability, we propose the AnyAudio-Judge Bench, a comprehensive, bilingual benchmark comprising 7,920 meticulously curated samples across four diverse audio domains (speech, sound, music, and mixed), featuring deliberately constructed hard negatives. Furthermore, we construct a large-scale corpus of 105K samples with explicit Chain-of-Thought (CoT) rationales to train our dedicated evaluator, the AnyAudio-Judge model. By employing a training pipeline that combines Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), our model successfully aligns its reasoning paths with the rubric-based scoring mechanism. Extensive experiments demonstrate that AnyAudio-Judge not only significantly enhances zero-shot alignment detection compared to state-of-the-art baselines, but also provides precise and interpretable reward signals that substantially improve instruction alignment in downstream reinforcement learning for audio generation.

Open-ended mathematics exams are valuable because they assess reasoning, proof construction, algorithmic thinking, and communication of intermediate steps. They are also difficult to grade at scale because instructors must apply partial-credit rubrics consistently while giving feedback that helps students repair misconceptions. This paper evaluates six contemporary large language model (LLM) configurations, Gemini 3.1 Pro Extended, Gemini 3.5 Flash, ChatGPT 5.5 Pro Extended, ChatGPT 5.5 Thinking, Claude Pro Opus 4.7, and Claude Sonnet 4.6, as grading assistants for an undergraduate discrete mathematics examination. The study compares two grading policies. The BASELINE policy uses a stricter rubric-following prompt that emphasizes explicit evidence and complete justification. The LIBERAL policy was added after preliminary grading showed that the baseline condition sometimes applied harsh point deductions and failed to recognize valid partial reasoning. Agreement with human grading is measured at both the question and exam-total levels using mean absolute error, root mean squared error, normalized root mean squared error, Pearson correlation, and exact agreement. The results show that liberal partial-credit prompting reduces average question-level error for every evaluated model family. ChatGPT 5.5 Thinking (LIBERAL) has the lowest average question-level MAE (1.87) and RMSE (2.53), while Gemini 3.1 Pro Extended (LIBERAL) has the lowest total-score MAE (8.00) and RMSE (10.66). However, the strongest total-score Pearson correlation occurs under Gemini 3.1 Pro Extended (BASELINE) at 0.58, showing that point calibration and rank preservation remain distinct goals. We also report practical usability observations.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) evolve from general-purpose assistants to user-centric agents, personalization has become central to aligning model behavior with individual preferences, making the evaluation of personalized alignment a critical bottleneck. Existing evaluation methods-ranging from automatic metrics to LLM-as-a-judge approaches-fail to capture subjective, user-specific preferences embedded in long-term interaction histories. We identify three essential principles for reliable and effective personalized evaluation: Representativeness, User-Consistency, and Discriminativeness. To address these principles, we introduce Personalized Evaluation as Learning, a paradigm that formulates personalized evaluation as a learning problem rather than a static judgment. Under this paradigm, we propose PARL (Preference-Aware Rubric Learning for Personalized Evaluation), a framework that learns to induce preference-aware evaluation rubrics directly from raw user histories and performs a self-validation mechanism to ensure consistency with the user's preferences. PARL integrates rubric induction with a discriminative reinforcement learning objective that contrasts user-authored responses against competitive personalized model outputs, enabling the learned rubrics to capture precise, user-specific decision boundaries. Experiments on real-world personalized text generation tasks show that PARL consistently induces high-fidelity rubrics that reliably identify user-aligned responses and generalize across users and tasks, while capturing stable stylistic preferences and fine-grained evaluative patterns. To ensure reproducibility, our code is available at https://github.com/SnowCharmQ/PARL.

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 ($α{=}.531\to.519$).

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for writing and review support, but their usefulness depends on context-dependent criteria, such as expert preferences or organization-specific conventions, that are often tacit, undocumented, and difficult to elicit directly. We propose a problem setting for learning reusable natural-language rubrics from accumulated inline comments on artifacts such as human-written or LLM-generated drafts. Our method infers rubrics from these comments and iteratively refines them by observing comment-wise mismatches between rubric-conditioned predictions and reference comments. We evaluate the proposed method in real-world review settings and in controlled settings with reference rubrics. These results show that inline comments can be distilled into reusable rubrics that support comment prediction, rubric understanding, and automatic artifact revision.

Reinforcement Learning (RL) has advanced Large Language Models (LLMs) in verifiable domains, while open-ended generation remains challenging due to the absence of definitive rewards. Rubric-based RL provides explicit evaluation criteria, but learning to construct these criteria remains challenging when final-answer correctness is not verifiable. We propose EvoRubric, a co-evolutionary RL framework that combines criterion-validity feedback, response discrimination, and peer agreement to learn rubrics for open-ended generation. A shared policy acts as both a Reasoner and a Rubric Generator, using its current responses and historical rubrics to discover new evaluation dimensions. To combine adaptive rubric discovery with a stable validity check, a frozen copy of the initial policy serves as the Meta-Verifier, while a frozen Grader scores responses against the retained criteria. Discriminative feedback, Leave-One-Out peer consensus, and a persistent memory pool transform this feedback into complementary rewards that jointly optimize both policy roles, closing the loop between response improvement and rubric discovery. EvoRubric improves over matched static and external evolving-rubric baselines across five benchmarks in Medical, Writing, and Science. Across three training seeds, it achieves five-benchmark averages of 56.28 at 8B and 61.13 at 14B, exceeding the strongest matched baselines by 3.09 and 2.06 points, respectively. Human audits assess criterion validity and response quality, and experiments with expert-initialized rubrics demonstrate compatibility with human priors.