Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Breaking the Exploration Bottleneck: Rubric-Scaffolded Reinforcement Learning for General LLM Reasoning

About

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have underscored the potential of Reinforcement Learning (RL) to facilitate the emergence of reasoning capabilities. Despite the encouraging results, a fundamental dilemma persists as RL improvement relies on learning from high-quality samples, yet the exploration for such samples remains bounded by the inherent limitations of LLMs. This, in effect, creates an undesirable cycle in which what cannot be explored cannot be learned. In this work, we propose Rubric-Scaffolded Reinforcement Learning (RuscaRL), a novel instructional scaffolding framework designed to break the exploration bottleneck for general LLM reasoning. Specifically, RuscaRL introduces checklist-style rubrics as (1) explicit scaffolding for exploration during rollout generation, where different rubrics are provided as external guidance within task instructions to steer diverse high-quality responses. This guidance is gradually decayed over time, encouraging the model to internalize the underlying reasoning patterns; (2) verifiable rewards for exploitation during model training, where we can obtain robust LLM-as-a-Judge scores using rubrics as references, enabling effective RL on general reasoning tasks. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of the proposed RuscaRL across various benchmarks, effectively expanding reasoning boundaries under the Best-of-N evaluation. Our code is available at https://github.com/IANNXANG/RuscaRL.

Yang Zhou, Sunzhu Li, Shunyu Liu, Wenkai Fang, Kongcheng Zhang, Jiale Zhao, Jingwen Yang, Yihe Zhou, Jianwei Lv, Tongya Zheng, Hengtong Lu, Wei Chen, Yan Xie, Mingli Song• 2025

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
Instruction FollowingIFEval
Accuracy (IFEval)79
101
Creative WritingCreative Writing v3
Overall Rubric Score38.6
44
Creative WritingWritingBench
Score56.1
42
Medical ReasoningHealthBench
Accuracy32.9
36
Reward AggregationHealthBench-500
Score58.2
18
Reward AggregationWritingBench
Score76.7
18
Reward AggregationPLawBench
Score74.2
18
Reward AggregationAverage HealthBench, WritingBench, PLawBench
Average Score69.3
18
Instruction FollowingIFBench
Accuracy33
18
Multi-turn Dialogue EvaluationMT-Bench OOD
R1 Score7.64
14
Showing 10 of 15 rows

Other info

Follow for update