Rubrics

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.