# Generating Data-Driven Reasoning Rubrics for Domain-Adaptive Reward Modeling

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.06795 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06795/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reinforcement learning for reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 31 of its 42 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reinforcement learning for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reinforcement-learning-for-reasoning/)
- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Process reward models for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/process-reward-models-for-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 31)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [DAPO: An Open-Source LLM Reinforcement Learning System at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.14476/) (2025)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [Qwen2.5-Math Technical Report: Toward Mathematical Expert Model via Self-Improvement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12122/) (2024)
- [Math-Shepherd: Verify and Reinforce LLMs Step-by-step without Human Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.08935/) (2023)
- [Aligning Large Multimodal Models with Factually Augmented RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.14525/) (2023)
- [WizardMath: Empowering Mathematical Reasoning for Large Language Models via Reinforced Evol-Instruct](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.09583/) (2023)
- [RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13787/) (2024)
- [UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01377/) (2023)
- [Deliberative Alignment: Reasoning Enables Safer Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.16339/) (2024)
- [REFLECT: Summarizing Robot Experiences for Failure Explanation and Correction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.15724/) (2023)
- [Generative Judge for Evaluating Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05470/) (2023)
- [NaturalReasoning: Reasoning in the Wild with 2.8M Challenging Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13124/) (2025)
- [Distilling Model Failures as Directions in Latent Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.14754/) (2022)
- [SALMON: Self-Alignment with Instructable Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05910/) (2023)
- [A Comprehensive Survey of Reward Models: Taxonomy, Applications, Challenges, and Future](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12328/) (2025)
- [Writing-Zero: Bridge the Gap Between Non-verifiable Tasks and Verifiable Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.00103/) (2025)
- [Specific versus General Principles for Constitutional AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13798/) (2023)
- [Inverse Constitutional AI: Compressing Preferences into Principles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06560/) (2024)
- [CompassVerifier: A Unified and Robust Verifier for LLMs Evaluation and Outcome Reward](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.03686/) (2025)
- [Self-Supervised Alignment with Mutual Information: Learning to Follow Principles without Preference Labels](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.14313/) (2024)
- [VibeCheck: Discover and Quantify Qualitative Differences in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12851/) (2024)
- [Recover: A Neuro-Symbolic Framework for Failure Detection and Recovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.00756/) (2024)
- [Enhancing Systematic Decompositional Natural Language Inference Using Informal Logic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.14798/) (2024)
- [Failures Are Fated, But Can Be Faded: Characterizing and Mitigating Unwanted Behaviors in Large-Scale Vision and Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.07145/) (2024)
- [Humans Perceive Wrong Narratives from AI Reasoning Texts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.16599/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [From Holistic Evaluation to Structured Criteria: Rubrics Across the Evolving LLM Landscape](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.08625/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

An impediment to using Large Language Models (LLMs) for reasoning output verification is that LLMs struggle to reliably identify errors in thinking traces, particularly in long outputs, domains requiring expert knowledge, and problems without verifiable rewards. We propose a data-driven approach to automatically construct highly granular reasoning error taxonomies to enhance LLM-driven error detection on unseen reasoning traces. Our findings indicate that classification approaches that leverage these error taxonomies, or "rubrics", demonstrate strong error identification compared to baseline methods in technical domains like coding, math, and chemical engineering. These rubrics can be used to build stronger LLM-as-judge reward functions for reasoning model training via reinforcement learning. Experimental results show that these rewards have the potential to improve models' task accuracy on difficult domains over models trained by general LLMs-as-judges by +45%, and approach performance of models trained by verifiable rewards while using as little as 20% as many gold labels. Through our approach, we extend the usage of reward rubrics from assessing qualitative model behavior to assessing quantitative model correctness on tasks typically learned via RLVR rewards. This extension opens the door for teaching models to solve complex technical problems without a full dataset of gold labels, which are often highly costly to procure.