Vaskar Nath

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, Pranav Raja, Claire Yoon et al.

Despite recent advances in AI, the development of systems capable of executing complex, multi-step reasoning tasks involving multiple tools remains a significant challenge. Current benchmarks fall short in capturing the real-world complexity of tool-use reasoning, where verifying the correctness of not only the final answer but also the intermediate steps is important for evaluation, development, and identifying failures during inference time. To bridge this gap, we introduce ToolComp, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate multi-step tool-use reasoning. ToolComp is developed through a collaboration between models and human annotators, featuring human-edited/verified prompts, final answers, and process supervision labels, allowing for the evaluation of both final outcomes and intermediate reasoning. Evaluation across six different model families demonstrates the challenging nature of our dataset, with the majority of models achieving less than 50% accuracy. Additionally, we generate synthetic training data to compare the performance of outcome-supervised reward models (ORMs) with process-supervised reward models (PRMs) to assess their ability to improve complex tool-use reasoning as evaluated by ToolComp. Our results show that PRMs generalize significantly better than ORMs, achieving a 19% and 11% improvement in rank@1 accuracy for ranking base and fine-tuned model trajectories, respectively. These findings highlight the critical role of process supervision in both the evaluation and training of AI models, paving the way for more robust and capable systems in complex, multi-step tool-use tasks.