Anisha Gunjal

Jun Yamada, Karl Pertsch, Anisha Gunjal et al.

In this work, we evaluate the effectiveness of representation learning approaches for decision making in visually complex environments. Representation learning is essential for effective reinforcement learning (RL) from high-dimensional inputs. Unsupervised representation learning approaches based on reconstruction, prediction or contrastive learning have shown substantial learning efficiency gains. Yet, they have mostly been evaluated in clean laboratory or simulated settings. In contrast, real environments are visually complex and contain substantial amounts of clutter and distractors. Unsupervised representations will learn to model such distractors, potentially impairing the agent's learning efficiency. In contrast, an alternative class of approaches, which we call task-induced representation learning, leverages task information such as rewards or demonstrations from prior tasks to focus on task-relevant parts of the scene and ignore distractors. We investigate the effectiveness of unsupervised and task-induced representation learning approaches on four visually complex environments, from Distracting DMControl to the CARLA driving simulator. For both, RL and imitation learning, we find that representation learning generally improves sample efficiency on unseen tasks even in visually complex scenes and that task-induced representations can double learning efficiency compared to unsupervised alternatives. Code is available at https://clvrai.com/tarp.

Anisha Gunjal, Jihan Yin, Erhan Bas

Instruction tuned Large Vision Language Models (LVLMs) have significantly advanced in generalizing across a diverse set of multi-modal tasks, especially for Visual Question Answering (VQA). However, generating detailed responses that are visually grounded is still a challenging task for these models. We find that even the current state-of-the-art LVLMs (InstructBLIP) still contain a staggering 30 percent of the hallucinatory text in the form of non-existent objects, unfaithful descriptions, and inaccurate relationships. To address this, we introduce M-HalDetect, a (M)ultimodal (Hal)lucination (Detect)ion Dataset that can be used to train and benchmark models for hallucination detection and prevention. M-HalDetect consists of 16k fine-grained annotations on VQA examples, making it the first comprehensive multi-modal hallucination detection dataset for detailed image descriptions. Unlike previous work that only consider object hallucination, we additionally annotate both entity descriptions and relationships that are unfaithful. To demonstrate the potential of this dataset for hallucination prevention, we optimize InstructBLIP through our novel Fine-grained Direct Preference Optimization (FDPO). We also train fine-grained multi-modal reward models from InstructBLIP and evaluate their effectiveness with best-of-n rejection sampling. We perform human evaluation on both FDPO and rejection sampling, and find that they reduce hallucination rates in InstructBLIP by 41% and 55% respectively. We also find that our reward model generalizes to other multi-modal models, reducing hallucinations in LLaVA and mPLUG-OWL by 15% and 57% respectively, and has strong correlation with human evaluated accuracy scores.

Afra Feyza Akyürek, Advait Gosai, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang et al.

Frontier model progress is often measured by academic benchmarks, which offer a limited view of performance in real-world professional contexts. Existing evaluations often fail to assess open-ended, economically consequential tasks in high-stakes domains like Legal and Finance, where practical returns are paramount. To address this, we introduce Professional Reasoning Bench (PRBench), a realistic, open-ended, and difficult benchmark of real-world problems in Finance and Law. We open-source its 1,100 expert-authored tasks and 19,356 expert-curated criteria, making it, to our knowledge, the largest public, rubric-based benchmark for both legal and finance domains. We recruit 182 qualified professionals, holding JDs, CFAs, or 6+ years of experience, who contributed tasks inspired by their actual workflows. This process yields significant diversity, with tasks spanning 114 countries and 47 US jurisdictions. Our expert-curated rubrics are validated through a rigorous quality pipeline, including independent expert validation. Subsequent evaluation of 20 leading models reveals substantial room for improvement, with top scores of only 0.39 (Finance) and 0.37 (Legal) on our Hard subsets. We further catalog associated economic impacts of the prompts and analyze performance using human-annotated rubric categories. Our analysis shows that models with similar overall scores can diverge significantly on specific capabilities. Common failure modes include inaccurate judgments, a lack of process transparency and incomplete reasoning, highlighting critical gaps in their reliability for professional adoption.

Anas Mahmoud, MohammadHossein Rezaei, Zihao Wang et al.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has enabled strong post-training gains in domains such as math and coding, though many open-ended settings rely on rubric-based rewards. We study reward hacking in rubric-based RL, where a policy is optimized against a training verifier but evaluated against a cross-family panel of three frontier judges, reducing dependence on any single evaluator. Our framework separates two sources of divergence: verifier failure, where the training verifier credits rubric criteria that reference verifiers reject, and rubric-design limitations, where even strong rubric-based verifiers favor responses that rubric-free judges rate worse overall. Across medical and science domains, weak verifiers produce large proxy-reward gains that do not transfer to the reference verifiers; exploitation grows over training and concentrates in recurring failures such as partial satisfaction of compound criteria, treating implicit content as explicit, and imprecise topical matching. Stronger verifiers substantially reduce, but do not eliminate, verifier exploitation. We also introduce a self-internalization gap, a verifier-free diagnostic based on policy log-probabilities, which tracks reference-verifier quality, detecting when the policy trained using the weak verifier stops improving. Finally, in our setting, stronger verification does not prevent reward hacking when the rubric leaves important failure modes unspecified: rubric-based verifiers prefer the RL checkpoint, while rubric-free judges prefer the base model. These disagreements coincide with gains concentrated in completeness and presence-based criteria, alongside declines in factual correctness, conciseness, relevance, and overall quality. Together, these results suggest that stronger verification reduces reward hacking, but does not by itself ensure that rubric gains correspond to broader quality gains.

Mohit Raghavendra, Anisha Gunjal, Bing Liu et al.

Verification is critical for improving agents: it provides the reward signal for Reinforcement Learning and enables inference-time gains through Test-Time Scaling (TTS). Despite its importance, verification in software engineering (SWE) agent settings often relies on code execution, which can be difficult to scale due to environment setup overhead. Scalable alternatives such as patch classifiers and heuristic methods exist, but they are less grounded in codebase context and harder to interpret. To this end, we explore Agentic Rubrics: an expert agent interacts with the repository to create a context-grounded rubric checklist, and candidate patches are then scored against it without requiring test execution. On SWE-Bench Verified under parallel TTS evaluation, Agentic Rubrics achieve a score of 54.2% on Qwen3-Coder-30B-A3B and 40.6% on Qwen3-32B, with at least a +3.5 percentage-point gain over the strongest baseline in our comparison set. We further analyze rubric behavior, showing that rubric scores are consistent with ground-truth tests while also flagging issues that tests do not capture. Our ablations show that agentic context gathering is essential for producing codebase-specific, unambiguous criteria. Together, these results suggest that Agentic Rubrics provide an efficient, scalable, and granular verification signal for SWE agents.

Anisha Gunjal, Anthony Wang, Elaine Lau et al.

Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has proven effective for complex reasoning tasks with clear correctness signals such as math and coding. However, extending it to real-world reasoning tasks is challenging, as evaluation depends on nuanced, multi-criteria judgments rather than binary correctness. Instance-specific rubrics have recently been used in evaluation benchmarks to capture such judgments, but their potential as reward signals for on-policy post-training remains underexplored. We introduce $\textbf{Rubrics as Rewards}$ (RaR), an on-policy reinforcement learning method that extends RLVR beyond verifiable domains by using rubric-based feedback. Across both medical and science domains, we evaluate multiple strategies for aggregating rubric feedback into rewards. The best RaR variant achieves relative improvements of up to $31\%$ on HealthBench and $7\%$ on GPQA-Diamond over popular LLM-as-judge baselines that rely on direct Likert-based rewards. These results demonstrate that RaR-trained policies adapt well to diverse evaluation formats, performing strongly on both rubric-based and multiple-choice tasks. Moreover, we find that using rubrics as structured reward signals yields better alignment for smaller judges and reduces performance variance across judge scales.

Vaskar Nath, Elaine Lau, Anisha Gunjal et al.

We study the process through which reasoning models trained with reinforcement learning on verifiable rewards (RLVR) can learn to solve new problems. We find that RLVR drives performance in two main ways: (1) by compressing pass@$k$ into pass@1 and (2) via "capability gain" in which models learn to solve new problems that they previously could not solve even at high $k$. We find that while capability gain exists across model scales, learning to solve new problems is primarily driven through self-distillation. We demonstrate these findings across model scales ranging from 0.5B to 72B parameters on >500,000 reasoning problems with prompts and verifiable final answers across math, science, and code domains. We further show that we can significantly improve pass@$k$ rates by leveraging natural language guidance for the model to consider within context while still requiring the model to derive a solution chain from scratch. Based of these insights, we derive $\text{Guide}$ -- a new class of online training algorithms. $\text{Guide}$ adaptively incorporates hints into the model's context on problems for which all rollouts were initially incorrect and adjusts the importance sampling ratio for the "off-policy" trajectories in order to optimize the policy for contexts in which the hints are no longer present. We describe variants of $\text{Guide}$ for GRPO and PPO and empirically show that Guide-GRPO on 7B and 32B parameter models improves generalization over its vanilla counterpart with up to 4$\%$ macro-average improvement across math benchmarks. We include careful ablations to analyze $\text{Guide}$'s components and theoretically analyze Guide's learning efficiency.

Rakshith S Srinivasa, Zora Che, Chen Bo Calvin Zhang et al.

As students increasingly adopt large language models (LLMs) as learning aids, it is crucial to build models that are adept at handling the nuances of tutoring: they need to identify the core needs of students, be adaptive, provide personalized guidance, and be accurate. To this end, we introduce TutorBench, a dataset and evaluation benchmark designed to rigorously evaluate the core tutoring skills of LLMs. The dataset comprises 1,490 samples curated by human experts, focused on high-school and AP-level curricula. The samples are drawn from three common tutoring tasks: (i) generating adaptive explanations tailored to a student's confusion, (ii) providing actionable feedback on a student's work, and (iii) promoting active learning through effective hint generation. To account for the inherent complexity of tutoring, samples are accompanied by sample-specific rubrics which are used to judge model responses during evaluation. TutorBench uses a reliable and fine-grained automatic evaluation method that uses an LLM-judge and the sample-specific rubrics. We evaluate 16 frontier LLMs on TutorBench and present a detailed analysis of their performance and behavior. Our results show that none of the frontier LLMs achieve a score of greater than $56\%$, showing a large room for improvement. We find that LLMs fall short in exhibiting the full range of tutoring skills needed to guide, diagnose, and support students effectively, with all the frontier models achieving less than a $60\%$ pass rate on rubric criteria related to these skills. We also find that different model families exhibit varied strengths and limitations: the Claude models outperform others in supporting active learning, while they lag behind in the other two use cases. By releasing TutorBench, we provide a comprehensive and unsaturated benchmark to guide the development of the next-generation of AI tutors.

Anisha Gunjal, Greg Durrett

Automatic factuality verification of large language model (LLM) generations is becoming more and more widely used to combat hallucinations. A major point of tension in the literature is the granularity of this fact-checking: larger chunks of text are hard to fact-check, but more atomic facts like propositions may lack context to interpret correctly. In this work, we assess the role of context in these atomic facts. We argue that fully atomic facts are not the right representation, and define two criteria for molecular facts: decontextuality, or how well they can stand alone, and minimality, or how little extra information is added to achieve decontexuality. We quantify the impact of decontextualization on minimality, then present a baseline methodology for generating molecular facts automatically, aiming to add the right amount of information. We compare against various methods of decontextualization and find that molecular facts balance minimality with fact verification accuracy in ambiguous settings.

Anisha Gunjal, Greg Durrett

Past work has studied event prediction and event language modeling, sometimes mediated through structured representations of knowledge in the form of event schemas. Such schemas can lead to explainable predictions and forecasting of unseen events given incomplete information. In this work, we look at the process of creating such schemas to describe complex events. We use large language models (LLMs) to draft schemas directly in natural language, which can be further refined by human curators as necessary. Our focus is on whether we can achieve sufficient diversity and recall of key events and whether we can produce the schemas in a sufficiently descriptive style. We show that large language models are able to achieve moderate recall against schemas taken from two different datasets, with even better results when multiple prompts and multiple samples are combined. Moreover, we show that textual entailment methods can be used for both matching schemas to instances of events as well as evaluating overlap between gold and predicted schemas. Our method paves the way for easier distillation of event knowledge from large language model into schemas.