mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A Rubric-Supervised Critic from Sparse Real-World Outcomes

arXiv 2603.03800 ↗First posted 4 Mar 2026cs.AI cs.LGcited by 5

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Software engineering coding agents

Abstract (arXiv)

Academic benchmarks for coding agents tend to reward autonomous task completion, measured by verifiable rewards such as unit-test success. In contrast, real-world coding agents operate with humans in the loop, where success signals are typically noisy, delayed, and sparse. How can we bridge this gap? In this paper, we propose a process to learn a "critic" model from sparse and noisy interaction data, which can then be used both as a reward model for either RL-based training or inference-time scaling. Specifically, we introduce Critic Rubrics, a rubric-based supervision framework with 24 behavioral features that can be derived from human-agent interaction traces alone. Using a semi-supervised objective, we can then jointly predict these rubrics and sparse human feedback (when present). In experiments, we demonstrate that, despite being trained primarily from trace-observable rubrics and sparse real-world outcome proxies, these critics improve best-of-N reranking on SWE-bench (Best@8 +15.9 over Random@8 over the rerankable subset of trajectories), enable early stopping (+17.7 with 83% fewer attempts), and support training-time data curation via critic-selected trajectories.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Software engineering coding agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 11 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Mar 2026.

Builds on

11 of 18 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Training Software Engineering Agents and Verifiers with SWE-Gym30 Dec
  2. 2024OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents23 Jul

Other references · 9

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 10,109
  3. 2023Let's Verify Step by Stepcited by 3,789
  4. 2022Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedbackcited by 3,720
  5. 2024Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameterscited by 1,986
  6. 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,462
  7. 2022Solving math word problems with process- and outcome-based feedbackcited by 901
  8. 2024Interpretable Preferences via Multi-Objective Reward Modeling and Mixture-of-Expertscited by 376
  9. 2024ReFT: Reasoning with Reinforced Fine-Tuningcited by 239

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 5.

5 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Cross-Benchmark Transfer from RL on Agentic Coding Tasks
  2. 2026Before They Can Solve: Predicting Post-Training Coding-Agent Performance from Base Models
  3. 2026Steer, Don't Solve: Training Small Critic Models for Large Code Agents
  4. 2026Chasing the Public Score: User Pressure and Evaluation Exploitation in Coding Agent Workflows
  5. 2025Auto-Rubric: Learning From Implicit Weights to Explicit Rubrics for Reward Modeling
  6. 2026TraceML: An Empirical Analysis of Human-Agent Planning in Machine Learning Development
  7. 2026AdaRubric: Task-Adaptive Rubrics for Reliable LLM Agent Evaluation and Reward Learning
  8. 2026SWE-Together: Evaluating Coding Agents in Interactive User Sessions