arXiv AI

Rubric Dropout: A Simple Way to Mitigate Reward Hacking in Rubric-as-Reward RL

arXiv:2608. 11669v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reinforcement learning against rubrics, lists of criteria graded by an LLM judge, has become a standard way to post-train language models on tasks with no deterministic answer.

arXiv AI
3d ago

Scoring Higher, Answering Worse: Mitigating Reward Hacking in Rubric-Based RL via Protocol-Level Rubrics

The paper identifies a flaw in rubric‑based reinforcement learning where additive reward aggregation allows policies to compensate for missing critical criteria, leading to higher scores but poorer answers, especially in clinical consultation tasks. It demonstrates that grouping rubric criteria into protocol‑level dimensions—so a dimension only counts when all its criteria are satisfied—mitigates this reward hacking. The proposed Protocol‑level Rubrics (ProRubric) improve appropriateness by 10.8 points without sacrificing coverage and achieve the best performance across seven benchmarks.

By Maoqi Liu, Junwei He, Bowen Zhang, Feiran Li, Wentao Ma, Rongyi Lin, Shuhan Zhong, Quan Fang
arXiv AI
Aug 17

Inducing Reward-Free Judging Rubrics that Reduce Over-Crediting in Agent Evaluation

arXiv:2608. 13564v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating language-model agents at scale increasingly relies on a second language model as an automatic judge, because the gold signal, an executable environment reward, is expensive, slow, or unavailable at deployment time.

By Darragh Quinn, David Dylan, Roisin Healy, Fionn Carroll, Maeve Donnelly, Cormac Sheehan
arXiv AI
Sep 4

DRACO: Fine-Grained Credit Assignment with Dynamic Rubrics for Long-Horizon Agent Training

DRACO introduces a method for fine‑grained credit assignment in long‑horizon reinforcement learning tasks that lack verifiable rewards. It dynamically generates multi‑criteria rubrics during training, scores them once per trajectory, and redistributes the resulting judgment over the steps responsible for each rubric to produce differentiated per‑step advantages. Experiments on AppWorld and Tau‑Bench show significant performance gains over baseline models and other rubric‑based approaches, even without using any verifiers.

By Shubham Gandhi, Saurabh Goyal, Kiran Kate, Yara Rizk
arXiv AI
Aug 24

Share the Judge, Learn the Deferral: Where Specialization Helps LLM Evaluation

The paper investigates two strategies for improving large language model (LLM) evaluation: specialized judge weights and rule‑based deferral policies. Experiments on nearly 100,000 rubric‑conditioned samples show that correct rubrics boost accuracy, while incorrect ones hurt it, and that splitting training data into criterion‑specific experts can severely degrade performance unless the experts are warm‑started from a unified model. The authors demonstrate that lightweight deferral cascades can match or exceed the accuracy of larger standalone judges at a fraction of the compute cost, and they provide practical design rules for building efficient, reliable LLM evaluators.

By Ye Chen, Weining Zhang
arXiv Computation and Language
4d ago

AdaTutoRank: Learning to Rerank Document Sets via Adaptive Tutoring Optimization for RAG and Deep Research

AdaTutoRank introduces a setwise document reranker that uses Adaptive Tutoring Optimization (ATO) to provide graded supervision across nine rubric dimensions. By generating hint‑based silver labels, reinforcement rewards, and distillation cues tailored to each rollout’s quality, the method improves credit assignment for individual documents within a set. Experiments on ten benchmarks covering Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG), deep research, and setwise evaluation show that AdaTutoRank achieves superior overall performance while reducing the number of retrieval calls.

By Kailin Jiang, Lei Liu, Jian Xi, Yangqi Chen, Hui Xu, Hongwei Zhao, Bin Li, Yu Lu, Haibo Shi