Papers › Auto-Rubric as Reward: From Implicit Preferences to Explicit Multimodal Generative Criteria
Auto-Rubric as Reward: From Implicit Preferences to Explicit Multimodal Generative Criteria
Juanxi Tian, Fengyuan Liu, Jiaming Han, Yilei Jiang, Yongliang Wu, Yesheng Liu, Haodong Li, Furong Xu, Wanhua Li
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
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.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2605.08354")
Code
Syntology Ran 7 of 13 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 6 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 3 ran · honoured contract; 1 ran · violated contract; 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 2 ran · fixture could not drive it.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 10 samples from 1 repository, 4 ran; 3 identical to code first harvested elsewhere. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
13 samples harvested; 7 ran; 3 honoured the contract we drafted; 6 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 3 of the 13 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from OpenEnvision/AutoRubric-as-Reward. Some samples are identical code Syntology first harvested from another repository; for those, this paper's copy is not located and its licence is not recorded. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
bfb49c26babf092b · report
cee2504594aabff2 · report
c6e6dc7696a9dd53 · report
41cac86bce0769df · report
a2781fb48dce4daa · report
b019786f46692d16 · report
61c1d9feae808f1a · report
cbe8fb4b68e80866 · report
5fd9b58e3fb41dc8 · report
fa905e7d6e488d4f · report
fe8a641669476f3e · report
4080cb55d923dfba · report
a34c4529d41a7731 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2605.08354, was issued in May 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections