# CARE: Contrastive Anchor-based Rubric Evolution for Large Language Model Post-Training

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00892 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.00892/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 29 of its 52 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 29 of 29)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Learning to summarize from human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.01325/) (2020)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.04475/) (2024)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [SFT Memorizes, RL Generalizes: A Comparative Study of Foundation Model Post-training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.17161/) (2025)
- [WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wild](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.01470/) (2024)
- [From Crowdsourced Data to High-Quality Benchmarks: Arena-Hard and BenchBuilder Pipeline](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.11939/) (2024)
- [UltraFeedback: Boosting Language Models with Scaled AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01377/) (2023)
- [Fine-Grained Human Feedback Gives Better Rewards for Language Model Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01693/) (2023)
- [Rubrics as Rewards: Reinforcement Learning Beyond Verifiable Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.17746/) (2025)
- [Inference-Time Scaling for Generalist Reward Modeling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.02495/) (2025)
- [Reward Model Ensembles Help Mitigate Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02743/) (2023)
- [Helping or Herding? Reward Model Ensembles Mitigate but do not Eliminate Reward Hacking](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.09244/) (2023)
- [RM-R1: Reward Modeling as Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.02387/) (2025)
- [OpenRubrics: Towards Scalable Synthetic Rubric Generation for Reward Modeling and LLM Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.07743/) (2025)
- [Checklists Are Better Than Reward Models For Aligning Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18624/) (2025)
- [DR Tulu: Reinforcement Learning with Evolving Rubrics for Deep Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.19399/) (2025)
- [Reinforcement Learning with Rubric Anchors](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.12790/) (2025)
- [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)
- [VerIF: Verification Engineering for Reinforcement Learning in Instruction Following](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09942/) (2025)
- [The Hitchhikers Guide to Rubric Quality Understanding and Enrichment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.01375/) (2026)

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

- [CoCA: Criterion-Aware Credit Assignment for Rubric-Based Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17733/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Rubric-based reinforcement learning decomposes open-ended instructions into prompt-specific, flexible rubrics, making it better suited than reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards for post-training LLMs on open-ended tasks. However, static rubrics are inevitably hacked as the policy evolves, and existing dynamic approaches introduce new problems: undirected rubric extraction, unreliable hack detection, and unbounded rubric proliferation. We propose CARE (Contrastive Anchor-based Rubric Evolution), which grounds every rubric evolution step in a high-quality anchor response generated by a frontier model conditioned on the prompt and its rubrics. At each training step, CARE contrasts the highest-scoring rollout against the anchor, enabling two complementary mechanisms: an Adaptive branch that reactively repairs reward misspecification; and a Chase branch that proactively converts frontier-level quality gaps into sharper rubrics. Together, the two branches maintain discriminative accuracy in the high-reward region---the precise region where reward over-optimization mostly originates. Experiments on WildChecklist-9K with Qwen2.5-7B-Base and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct show that CARE achieves state-of-the-art performance on Arena-Hard-2.0, InfoBench, and FollowBench, and is the only method whose win rate against GPT-4.1 anchor responses shows sustained improvement throughout 300 training steps; additional results on Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct and Qwen3-8B further indicate that CARE generalizes across model families.