# CriterAlign: Criterion-Centric Rationale Alignment for Code Preference Judging

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.19665 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.19665/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Process reward models for reasoning, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 45 of its 67 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 19 May 2026.

## Placed in

- 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 45)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (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)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15594/) (2024)
- [Prometheus: Inducing Fine-grained Evaluation Capability in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08491/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06196/) (2024)
- [Generative Verifiers: Reward Modeling as Next-Token Prediction](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.15240/) (2024)
- [LLMs-as-Judges: A Comprehensive Survey on LLM-based Evaluation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05579/) (2024)
- [Prometheus 2: An Open Source Language Model Specialized in Evaluating Other Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01535/) (2024)
- [Kimi-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.07491/) (2025)
- [JudgeLM: Fine-tuned Large Language Models are Scalable Judges](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.17631/) (2023)
- [Rubrics as Rewards: Reinforcement Learning Beyond Verifiable Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.17746/) (2025)
- [Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21819/) (2024)
- [Inference-Time Scaling for Generalist Reward Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.02495/) (2025)
- [OpenRubrics: Towards Scalable Synthetic Rubric Generation for Reward Modeling and LLM Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.07743/) (2025)
- [Critique-out-Loud Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.11791/) (2024)
- [Trust or Escalate: LLM Judges with Provable Guarantees for Human Agreement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.18370/) (2024)
- [TICKing All the Boxes: Generated Checklists Improve LLM Evaluation and Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.03608/) (2024)
- [Rethinking Rubric Generation for Improving LLM Judge and Reward Modeling for Open-ended Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.05125/) (2026)
- [CodeUltraFeedback: An LLM-as-a-Judge Dataset for Aligning Large Language Models to Coding Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.09032/) (2024)
- [SALMON: Self-Alignment with Instructable Reward Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.05910/) (2023)
- [Chasing the Tail: Effective Rubric-based Reward Modeling for Large Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.21500/) (2025)
- [Online Rubrics Elicitation from Pairwise Comparisons](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.07284/) (2025)
- [CodeJudge: Evaluating Code Generation with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.02184/) (2024)
- [Inverse Constitutional AI: Compressing Preferences into Principles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.06560/) (2024)
- [HD-Eval: Aligning Large Language Model Evaluators Through Hierarchical Criteria Decomposition](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.15754/) (2024)
- [CodeJudgeBench: Benchmarking LLM-as-a-Judge for Coding Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.10535/) (2025)
- [MCTS-Judge: Test-Time Scaling in LLM-as-a-Judge for Code Correctness Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12468/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Pairwise human preference prediction is central to evaluating code-generation systems, where quality often depends on task-specific trade-offs beyond functional correctness. While rubric-based LLM judges improve interpretability by decomposing evaluation into explicit criteria, most existing pipelines remain pointwise: they score each response independently and derive preferences by comparing aggregated scores. We show that this design is poorly matched to pairwise code preference prediction and can underperform a strong monolithic judge. We propose CriterAlign, a criterion-centric framework that adapts rubric-based judging to pairwise preference evaluation through direct criterion-level pairwise judgments, tie-driven criterion refinement, swap-consistency filtering, and final pairwise synthesis. We further introduce Human-Preference-Aligned Guidance (HPAG), synthesized offline from training examples by extracting recurring rationale gaps between human preferences and monolithic judge predictions, and injected into the criterion generator, criterion judge, and final judge. On BigCodeReward, CriterAlign improves a Qwen2.5-VL-32B monolithic judge from 60.4% to 66.3% accuracy, with ablations confirming the contributions of pairwise criterion design and HPAG.