A curated list of resources (surveys, papers, benchmarks, and opensource projects) on Rubrics
120
105 commits
updated Sep 12, 2026
A curated reading list on rubric-based evaluation, reward modeling, and post-training for large models.
Rubrics turn expert judgment into structured criteria, auditable LLM judges, and trainable reward signals.
@misc{xiao2026structuring,
title = {Structuring Human Objectives: A Survey of Rubrics for Evaluation, Alignment, and Agentic AI},
author = {Xiao, Hongru and Li, Jie and Li, Zhirui and Yang, Bin and Li, Xiang and Li, Sunzhu and Han, Jiale},
year = {2026},
month = jun,
note = {Available at SSRN: \url{https://ssrn.com/abstract=6970459}},
doi = {10.2139/ssrn.6970459}
}
Papers with publicly released code or project resources are marked with inline [[Code](...)] or [[Proj](...)] links. Entries without verified repositories omit that link.
Contributions are welcome. If you find missing papers, inaccurate classifications, or newly released code, feel free to update this list.
In the context of LLM evaluation and alignment, a rubric is a structured set of criteria for judging open-ended model outputs. Instead of asking a human or LLM judge for one vague preference, rubrics decompose quality into explicit dimensions, scoring rules, and evidence requirements.
Rubrics make subjective judgment more inspectable:
Figure 1. Rubrics convert coarse feedback into fine-grained, inspectable reward signals.
| Feedback style | Typical signal | Best fit | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLHF / model-based preference | "Output A is better than output B." | Open-ended comparison | Coarse and hard to inspect |
| RLVR / rule-based reward | Format is correct, answer matches, reasoning token appears, list structure exists | Verifiable tasks | Too rigid for subjective or open-ended tasks |
| Rubric-based feedback | Relevance, completeness, clarity, safety, each scored separately | Open-ended evaluation and training | Requires careful design and calibration |
Rubrics are the middle layer: more structured than model-only preference, more flexible than hard rules.
"In this new era, evaluation becomes more important than training."
- Shunyu Yao, The Second Half (2025)
As large models move from closed-form QA to open-ended reasoning, agents, multimodal generation, and professional domains, progress is increasingly bottlenecked by evaluation and feedback design. Training can optimize only what the system can measure, and many important tasks cannot be reduced to a single scalar reward.
| Rubrics help answer | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What counts as good behavior? | They define explicit criteria, scoring boundaries, and failure modes. |
| How can expert judgment scale? | They convert tacit standards into reusable evaluation instructions and datasets. |
| How can LLM-as-a-Judge become less opaque? | Judges can be required to expose criteria, evidence, scores, and rationales. |
| How does evaluation become training signal? | Rubric-level feedback can supervise SFT, preference tuning, policy optimization, reward modeling, and curriculum learning. |
Rubrics therefore act as a bridge between human standards and machine-optimizable signals. They are not merely annotation templates; they are a control surface for evaluation, reward modeling, and post-training.
Figure 2. The number of rubric-related papers has grown rapidly, suggesting increasing research attention to structured evaluation and reward design.
The rising trend shows that rubric-based methods are becoming an increasingly important direction for large-model alignment, especially as evaluation, reward modeling, and post-training move toward more structured and auditable feedback.
Evaluation is no longer only a post-hoc metric. It is becoming part of the infrastructure of AI systems:
🧑⚖️ Expert Standards → 📋 Rubrics → 📊 Evaluation Signals → 🎯 Rewards → 🔁 Training Dynamics
Rubrics are therefore not just for judging model outputs. They provide a way to automate parts of expert feedback: experts define criteria, models apply them at scale, and failures reveal where the rubric or judge must be revised. In this sense, evaluation becomes an executable form of domain knowledge.
For the query:
How can cities encourage more people to use public transport?
a rubric does not directly ask "which answer is better?" It decomposes the judgment:
| Component | What the judge checks |
|---|---|
| Relevance | Does the answer address public transport adoption rather than unrelated urban issues? |
| Clarity | Is the answer easy to understand and well organized? |
| Completeness | Does it cover affordability, convenience, infrastructure, reliability, and incentives? |
| Safety / fairness | Does it avoid harmful, biased, or exclusionary suggestions? |
This makes the reward more interpretable, decomposable, and actionable.
This repository is organized as a conceptual map of rubric-related research. We group papers by the role rubrics play in the large-model pipeline.
This organization helps show rubrics not only as evaluation tools, but also as structured interfaces connecting expert standards, feedback data, reward signals, training objectives, and deployment-time assessment.
| Section | Role in the repository |
|---|---|
| Data | Covers how rubrics are collected, generated, refined, and organized into reusable supervision signals through human annotation, synthetic generation, expert labeling, and rubric datasets. |
| Training | Summarizes how rubric-level judgments can be transformed into SFT data, preference objectives, RL rewards, curriculum signals, and self-improvement loops. |
| Evaluation | Connects rubrics to LLM-as-a-judge protocols, benchmark design, calibration, reliability analysis, and robustness checks, where explicit and auditable criteria are especially important. |
| Applications | Shows how rubric-based methods extend beyond text QA to multimodal tasks, agent systems, and professional domains that require domain-specific standards. |
Overall, this structure follows the lifecycle of rubric-based large-model alignment:
Define criteria → collect or generate rubric data → train with rubric signals → evaluate with structured judges → apply in domain-specific tasks
Rubrics provide a structured layer for connecting data, training, evaluation, and applications.
Papers with publicly released code are marked with 🌟.
This section collects work on how rubrics are created, refined, and validated before use in evaluation or training.
Expert-based annotation relies on domain specialists or expert-designed protocols when reliable rubrics require professional standards or task-specific expertise.
These works study tasks where expert knowledge is necessary to define what counts as a correct, safe, complete, or high-quality answer.
These works release or organize expert-provided rubrics, checklists, or evaluation criteria as reusable assets for judging model outputs.
Model-based annotation uses LLMs or automated pipelines to construct rubric criteria at scale, reducing reliance on fully manual rubric authoring.
Naive generation methods ask models to produce criteria or checklists directly from the task, prompt, answer, or context, without grounding them in preference pairs or iterative human correction.
Pairs-grounded methods infer criteria from preferences, comparisons, or contrastive response pairs, converting implicit relative judgments into explicit rubric dimensions.
Iterative refinement methods repeatedly revise rubrics using feedback, disagreement, scoring errors, or self-reflection so that the criteria better match intended judgments.
Human-AI collaboration treats rubric construction as a joint process where humans guide, inspect, or correct model-generated criteria rather than fully delegating rubric design.
This section covers methods that turn rubrics into training signals for models, reward models, evaluators, and agents.
Pre-training work would use rubric-like supervision before task-specific alignment, preparing models for later rubric-guided evaluation or optimization.
Post-training work applies rubrics after base-model training, using them for supervised fine-tuning, reward modeling, reinforcement learning, or self-improvement.
Rubrics can guide supervised fine-tuning by filtering examples, weighting samples, generating rationales, or teaching models to follow explicit criteria.
Preference-reward methods use rubrics or criteria to structure preference data and train reward models, rather than directly optimizing a hand-written rubric score.
Direct-reward RL directly optimizes policies using rubric scores, checklist outcomes, verifier judgments, or criterion-level feedback as rewards.
Rubric judgement pattern methods ask a judge, verifier, or rubric model to score outputs against explicit criteria and aggregate those judgments into rewards.
Rubric grader analysis studies the reliability, calibration, robustness, and failure modes of rubric graders used as reward or evaluation signals.
Multi-objective optimization treats rubric dimensions as separate reward components, balancing competing goals such as correctness, safety, helpfulness, and style.
Credit assignment methods distribute rubric feedback from a final answer to intermediate steps, tokens, stages, or features so training receives denser supervision.
Agent harness methods embed rubric-based judges, verifiers, or reward models inside long-horizon agent loops to guide planning, tool use, and process quality.
Advanced training methods make rubrics dynamic training instruments, using them as curricula, evolving objectives, or guidance signals rather than fixed scoring sheets.
Curriculum learning methods use rubric structure to order tasks, examples, or reward difficulty from easier criteria to harder ones.
Self-evolving learning methods let rubrics change during training, using model failures, self-play, memory, or feedback to raise or adjust standards.
Hint-based learning uses rubrics as scaffolds, critiques, or guidance signals that point the learner toward missing criteria during optimization.
This section covers rubric signals constructed or adapted at test time to guide judging, verification, refinement, or response selection without updating model weights.
Inference-time rubric supervision generates or adapts criteria during deployment, using extra test-time computation to decompose, judge, and refine outputs when fixed references are unavailable.
This section focuses on reward-hacking failures that arise when models optimize against imperfect rubric rewards or rubric-based judges.
Rubric reward hacking work studies how models exploit loopholes, misspecified criteria, judge artifacts, or weak reward tails to obtain high rubric scores without genuinely better behavior.
Rubric-based evaluation work introduces benchmarks, datasets, or protocols that make open-ended model behavior comparable through explicit criteria and structured scoring.
Real-world task benchmarks evaluate performance in concrete domains where rubric criteria encode professional, institutional, or task-specific standards.
Medical benchmarks use rubrics to assess health-related accuracy, safety, reasoning, empathy, and usefulness under clinical or expert-informed standards.
Legal benchmarks use rubrics to evaluate legal reasoning, issue identification, evidence use, and procedural or substantive correctness.
Office labor benchmarks evaluate workplace tasks such as customer service, finance, hiring, productivity, and business workflows where outputs must satisfy operational criteria.
Academic benchmarks use rubrics to assess educational, scientific, or research tasks where outputs must satisfy discipline-specific correctness and presentation standards.
Deep research benchmarks evaluate long-form research agents or reports, emphasizing evidence coverage, citation quality, logical support, completeness, and objectivity.
Creative generation benchmarks use rubrics to judge open-ended artifacts such as writing, tables, images, or videos along multiple quality dimensions.
General capability benchmarks test transferable abilities with rubric-based protocols, abstracting away from a single professional domain.
Agentic benchmarks evaluate planning, tool use, environment interaction, and long-horizon decision making with rubric-guided or process-aware assessment.
Reasoning benchmarks use rubrics to assess reasoning quality when answers involve partial credit, social or moral concepts, explanations, or hard-to-verify intermediate logic.
Alignment benchmarks assess whether models or judges follow intended preferences, instructions, safety constraints, and consistency principles under explicit criteria.
Applications use rubrics as practical task interfaces: they guide generation, evaluation, training, or refinement in concrete systems rather than only proposing benchmarks.
Domain applications apply rubrics within specific task settings such as healthcare, writing, retrieval, deep research, code, and agent workflows.
Medical applications use rubrics to align healthcare models with clinical reasoning, patient safety, expert preferences, and domain-specific response standards.
Writing and retrieval applications use rubrics to guide text generation, revision, explanation, document retrieval, and automated assessment of written outputs.
DeepResearch applications use rubrics to supervise search, evidence chaining, report generation, and long-horizon research-agent optimization.
Code applications apply rubrics to software engineering agents, patch evaluation, code collaboration, and programming workflows.
General agentic applications use rubrics to coordinate, evaluate, or train agents across tool use, simulated worlds, interviews, and other open-ended environments.
Multimodal applications extend rubric supervision beyond text, using criteria to assess or train systems that combine language with vision, speech, or omni-modal signals.
Text-and-vision applications use rubrics for image or video generation, captioning, visual reasoning, and visual reward modeling.
Text-and-audio applications use rubrics to evaluate or fine-tune speech-language systems across multiple raters, aspects, and quality dimensions.
Omni-modal applications use rubric-grounded preference or reward modeling across multiple modalities within a unified training or evaluation framework.
This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.
If you have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to contact Hongru Xiao.
A curated list of resources (surveys, papers, benchmarks, and opensource projects) on Rubrics
120
105 commits
updated Sep 12, 2026
A curated reading list on rubric-based evaluation, reward modeling, and post-training for large models.
Rubrics turn expert judgment into structured criteria, auditable LLM judges, and trainable reward signals.
@misc{xiao2026structuring,
title = {Structuring Human Objectives: A Survey of Rubrics for Evaluation, Alignment, and Agentic AI},
author = {Xiao, Hongru and Li, Jie and Li, Zhirui and Yang, Bin and Li, Xiang and Li, Sunzhu and Han, Jiale},
year = {2026},
month = jun,
note = {Available at SSRN: \url{https://ssrn.com/abstract=6970459}},
doi = {10.2139/ssrn.6970459}
}
Papers with publicly released code or project resources are marked with inline [[Code](...)] or [[Proj](...)] links. Entries without verified repositories omit that link.
Contributions are welcome. If you find missing papers, inaccurate classifications, or newly released code, feel free to update this list.
In the context of LLM evaluation and alignment, a rubric is a structured set of criteria for judging open-ended model outputs. Instead of asking a human or LLM judge for one vague preference, rubrics decompose quality into explicit dimensions, scoring rules, and evidence requirements.
Rubrics make subjective judgment more inspectable:
Figure 1. Rubrics convert coarse feedback into fine-grained, inspectable reward signals.
| Feedback style | Typical signal | Best fit | Main limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| RLHF / model-based preference | "Output A is better than output B." | Open-ended comparison | Coarse and hard to inspect |
| RLVR / rule-based reward | Format is correct, answer matches, reasoning token appears, list structure exists | Verifiable tasks | Too rigid for subjective or open-ended tasks |
| Rubric-based feedback | Relevance, completeness, clarity, safety, each scored separately | Open-ended evaluation and training | Requires careful design and calibration |
Rubrics are the middle layer: more structured than model-only preference, more flexible than hard rules.
"In this new era, evaluation becomes more important than training."
- Shunyu Yao, The Second Half (2025)
As large models move from closed-form QA to open-ended reasoning, agents, multimodal generation, and professional domains, progress is increasingly bottlenecked by evaluation and feedback design. Training can optimize only what the system can measure, and many important tasks cannot be reduced to a single scalar reward.
| Rubrics help answer | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What counts as good behavior? | They define explicit criteria, scoring boundaries, and failure modes. |
| How can expert judgment scale? | They convert tacit standards into reusable evaluation instructions and datasets. |
| How can LLM-as-a-Judge become less opaque? | Judges can be required to expose criteria, evidence, scores, and rationales. |
| How does evaluation become training signal? | Rubric-level feedback can supervise SFT, preference tuning, policy optimization, reward modeling, and curriculum learning. |
Rubrics therefore act as a bridge between human standards and machine-optimizable signals. They are not merely annotation templates; they are a control surface for evaluation, reward modeling, and post-training.
Figure 2. The number of rubric-related papers has grown rapidly, suggesting increasing research attention to structured evaluation and reward design.
The rising trend shows that rubric-based methods are becoming an increasingly important direction for large-model alignment, especially as evaluation, reward modeling, and post-training move toward more structured and auditable feedback.
Evaluation is no longer only a post-hoc metric. It is becoming part of the infrastructure of AI systems:
🧑⚖️ Expert Standards → 📋 Rubrics → 📊 Evaluation Signals → 🎯 Rewards → 🔁 Training Dynamics
Rubrics are therefore not just for judging model outputs. They provide a way to automate parts of expert feedback: experts define criteria, models apply them at scale, and failures reveal where the rubric or judge must be revised. In this sense, evaluation becomes an executable form of domain knowledge.
For the query:
How can cities encourage more people to use public transport?
a rubric does not directly ask "which answer is better?" It decomposes the judgment:
| Component | What the judge checks |
|---|---|
| Relevance | Does the answer address public transport adoption rather than unrelated urban issues? |
| Clarity | Is the answer easy to understand and well organized? |
| Completeness | Does it cover affordability, convenience, infrastructure, reliability, and incentives? |
| Safety / fairness | Does it avoid harmful, biased, or exclusionary suggestions? |
This makes the reward more interpretable, decomposable, and actionable.
This repository is organized as a conceptual map of rubric-related research. We group papers by the role rubrics play in the large-model pipeline.
This organization helps show rubrics not only as evaluation tools, but also as structured interfaces connecting expert standards, feedback data, reward signals, training objectives, and deployment-time assessment.
| Section | Role in the repository |
|---|---|
| Data | Covers how rubrics are collected, generated, refined, and organized into reusable supervision signals through human annotation, synthetic generation, expert labeling, and rubric datasets. |
| Training | Summarizes how rubric-level judgments can be transformed into SFT data, preference objectives, RL rewards, curriculum signals, and self-improvement loops. |
| Evaluation | Connects rubrics to LLM-as-a-judge protocols, benchmark design, calibration, reliability analysis, and robustness checks, where explicit and auditable criteria are especially important. |
| Applications | Shows how rubric-based methods extend beyond text QA to multimodal tasks, agent systems, and professional domains that require domain-specific standards. |
Overall, this structure follows the lifecycle of rubric-based large-model alignment:
Define criteria → collect or generate rubric data → train with rubric signals → evaluate with structured judges → apply in domain-specific tasks
Rubrics provide a structured layer for connecting data, training, evaluation, and applications.
Papers with publicly released code are marked with 🌟.
This section collects work on how rubrics are created, refined, and validated before use in evaluation or training.
Expert-based annotation relies on domain specialists or expert-designed protocols when reliable rubrics require professional standards or task-specific expertise.
These works study tasks where expert knowledge is necessary to define what counts as a correct, safe, complete, or high-quality answer.
These works release or organize expert-provided rubrics, checklists, or evaluation criteria as reusable assets for judging model outputs.
Model-based annotation uses LLMs or automated pipelines to construct rubric criteria at scale, reducing reliance on fully manual rubric authoring.
Naive generation methods ask models to produce criteria or checklists directly from the task, prompt, answer, or context, without grounding them in preference pairs or iterative human correction.
Pairs-grounded methods infer criteria from preferences, comparisons, or contrastive response pairs, converting implicit relative judgments into explicit rubric dimensions.
Iterative refinement methods repeatedly revise rubrics using feedback, disagreement, scoring errors, or self-reflection so that the criteria better match intended judgments.
Human-AI collaboration treats rubric construction as a joint process where humans guide, inspect, or correct model-generated criteria rather than fully delegating rubric design.
This section covers methods that turn rubrics into training signals for models, reward models, evaluators, and agents.
Pre-training work would use rubric-like supervision before task-specific alignment, preparing models for later rubric-guided evaluation or optimization.
Post-training work applies rubrics after base-model training, using them for supervised fine-tuning, reward modeling, reinforcement learning, or self-improvement.
Rubrics can guide supervised fine-tuning by filtering examples, weighting samples, generating rationales, or teaching models to follow explicit criteria.
Preference-reward methods use rubrics or criteria to structure preference data and train reward models, rather than directly optimizing a hand-written rubric score.
Direct-reward RL directly optimizes policies using rubric scores, checklist outcomes, verifier judgments, or criterion-level feedback as rewards.
Rubric judgement pattern methods ask a judge, verifier, or rubric model to score outputs against explicit criteria and aggregate those judgments into rewards.
Rubric grader analysis studies the reliability, calibration, robustness, and failure modes of rubric graders used as reward or evaluation signals.
Multi-objective optimization treats rubric dimensions as separate reward components, balancing competing goals such as correctness, safety, helpfulness, and style.
Credit assignment methods distribute rubric feedback from a final answer to intermediate steps, tokens, stages, or features so training receives denser supervision.
Agent harness methods embed rubric-based judges, verifiers, or reward models inside long-horizon agent loops to guide planning, tool use, and process quality.
Advanced training methods make rubrics dynamic training instruments, using them as curricula, evolving objectives, or guidance signals rather than fixed scoring sheets.
Curriculum learning methods use rubric structure to order tasks, examples, or reward difficulty from easier criteria to harder ones.
Self-evolving learning methods let rubrics change during training, using model failures, self-play, memory, or feedback to raise or adjust standards.
Hint-based learning uses rubrics as scaffolds, critiques, or guidance signals that point the learner toward missing criteria during optimization.
This section covers rubric signals constructed or adapted at test time to guide judging, verification, refinement, or response selection without updating model weights.
Inference-time rubric supervision generates or adapts criteria during deployment, using extra test-time computation to decompose, judge, and refine outputs when fixed references are unavailable.
This section focuses on reward-hacking failures that arise when models optimize against imperfect rubric rewards or rubric-based judges.
Rubric reward hacking work studies how models exploit loopholes, misspecified criteria, judge artifacts, or weak reward tails to obtain high rubric scores without genuinely better behavior.
Rubric-based evaluation work introduces benchmarks, datasets, or protocols that make open-ended model behavior comparable through explicit criteria and structured scoring.
Real-world task benchmarks evaluate performance in concrete domains where rubric criteria encode professional, institutional, or task-specific standards.
Medical benchmarks use rubrics to assess health-related accuracy, safety, reasoning, empathy, and usefulness under clinical or expert-informed standards.
Legal benchmarks use rubrics to evaluate legal reasoning, issue identification, evidence use, and procedural or substantive correctness.
Office labor benchmarks evaluate workplace tasks such as customer service, finance, hiring, productivity, and business workflows where outputs must satisfy operational criteria.
Academic benchmarks use rubrics to assess educational, scientific, or research tasks where outputs must satisfy discipline-specific correctness and presentation standards.
Deep research benchmarks evaluate long-form research agents or reports, emphasizing evidence coverage, citation quality, logical support, completeness, and objectivity.
Creative generation benchmarks use rubrics to judge open-ended artifacts such as writing, tables, images, or videos along multiple quality dimensions.
General capability benchmarks test transferable abilities with rubric-based protocols, abstracting away from a single professional domain.
Agentic benchmarks evaluate planning, tool use, environment interaction, and long-horizon decision making with rubric-guided or process-aware assessment.
Reasoning benchmarks use rubrics to assess reasoning quality when answers involve partial credit, social or moral concepts, explanations, or hard-to-verify intermediate logic.
Alignment benchmarks assess whether models or judges follow intended preferences, instructions, safety constraints, and consistency principles under explicit criteria.
Applications use rubrics as practical task interfaces: they guide generation, evaluation, training, or refinement in concrete systems rather than only proposing benchmarks.
Domain applications apply rubrics within specific task settings such as healthcare, writing, retrieval, deep research, code, and agent workflows.
Medical applications use rubrics to align healthcare models with clinical reasoning, patient safety, expert preferences, and domain-specific response standards.
Writing and retrieval applications use rubrics to guide text generation, revision, explanation, document retrieval, and automated assessment of written outputs.
DeepResearch applications use rubrics to supervise search, evidence chaining, report generation, and long-horizon research-agent optimization.
Code applications apply rubrics to software engineering agents, patch evaluation, code collaboration, and programming workflows.
General agentic applications use rubrics to coordinate, evaluate, or train agents across tool use, simulated worlds, interviews, and other open-ended environments.
Multimodal applications extend rubric supervision beyond text, using criteria to assess or train systems that combine language with vision, speech, or omni-modal signals.
Text-and-vision applications use rubrics for image or video generation, captioning, visual reasoning, and visual reward modeling.
Text-and-audio applications use rubrics to evaluate or fine-tune speech-language systems across multiple raters, aspects, and quality dimensions.
Omni-modal applications use rubric-grounded preference or reward modeling across multiple modalities within a unified training or evaluation framework.
This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.
If you have any questions or suggestions, please feel free to contact Hongru Xiao.