arXiv AI

Rubrics as Privileged Information for Open-Ended Generation

arXiv:2608. 02948v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: On-policy self-distillation (OPSD), where a single model acts as both student and teacher with different contexts, has shown promise in verifiable domains like math, where hard privileged information (PI) in the form of ground-truth answers structurally constrains valid continuations.

Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 17

Rethinking Reward Supervision: Rubric-Conditioned Self-Distillation

Post-training of reasoning language models is commonly driven by supervised distillation and reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. Distillation often relies on chain-of-thought annotations that are expensive to obtain and may themselves be noisy, incomplete, or partially incorrect; even when the final solution is correct, an imperfect rationale can interfere with learning.

arXiv AI
Aug 6

Privileged, but Biased: How PI-Conditioned Teachers Break Self-Distillation

arXiv:2608. 04794v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Self-distillation (SD) has emerged as a compute-efficient alternative to reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards: a self-teacher, conditioned on privileged information (PI) about the answer such as a reference solution, supplies dense per-token supervision to a student that never sees it.

By Sarthak Harne, Chinmay Karkar, Yash Pandya, Ahmed Awadallah, Akshay Nambi
arXiv AI
Aug 13

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.

By Minglai Yang, Xinyu Guo, Utkarsh Tyagi, Mian Zhang, Razvan Dumitru, Sunjie Hou, Yunzhong He, Daniel Yue Zhang, Ying Liu
arXiv AI
2d 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