Paper
When Rubrics Fail: Error Enumeration as Reward in Reference-Free RL Post-Training for Virtual Try-On
Authors
Wisdom Ikezogwo, Mehmet Saygin Seyfioglu, Ranjay Krishna, Karim Bouyarmane
Abstract
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) and Rubrics as Rewards (RaR) have driven strong gains in domains with clear correctness signals and even in subjective domains by synthesizing evaluation criteria from ideal reference answers. But many real-world tasks admit multiple valid outputs and lack the single ideal answer that rubric generation depends on. We identify this reference-free setting as a gap in current post-training methods and propose Implicit Error Counting (IEC) to fill it. Instead of checking what a response gets right against a rubric, IEC enumerates what it gets wrong, applying severity-weighted scores across task-relevant axes and converting them into calibrated per-aspect rewards. We show that naïve explicit enumeration is too noisy for stable optimization, and that two design choices: implicit score emission and group calibration are necessary to make error counting a reliable reward. As a case study, we validate IEC on virtual try-on (VTO), a domain that is simultaneously too constrained for holistic scoring and too permissive for rubric-based evaluation: subtle garment errors are unacceptable, yet many output variations are correct. We introduce Cascaded Error Counting (CEC) as an evaluation metric, which tracks human preferences well (60% top-1 vs. 30% others), and curate Mismatch-DressCode (MDressBench), a benchmark with maximal attribute mismatch to stress-test reward designs. On MDressBench, IEC outperforms RaR across all metrics (CEC: 5.31 vs. 5.60 on flat references; 5.20 vs. 5.53 on non-flat). On VITON-HD and DressCode, IEC matches or surpasses six baselines on 6 of 8 perceptual metrics. These results suggest that when ideal answers are unavailable, counting errors provide a stronger signal than constructing rubrics.
Metadata
Related papers
Cosmic Shear in Effective Field Theory at Two-Loop Order: Revisiting $S_8$ in Dark Energy Survey Data
Shi-Fan Chen, Joseph DeRose, Mikhail M. Ivanov, Oliver H. E. Philcox • 2026-03-30
Stop Probing, Start Coding: Why Linear Probes and Sparse Autoencoders Fail at Compositional Generalisation
Vitória Barin Pacela, Shruti Joshi, Isabela Camacho, Simon Lacoste-Julien, Da... • 2026-03-30
SNID-SAGE: A Modern Framework for Interactive Supernova Classification and Spectral Analysis
Fiorenzo Stoppa, Stephen J. Smartt • 2026-03-30
Acoustic-to-articulatory Inversion of the Complete Vocal Tract from RT-MRI with Various Audio Embeddings and Dataset Sizes
Sofiane Azzouz, Pierre-André Vuissoz, Yves Laprie • 2026-03-30
Rotating black hole shadows in metric-affine bumblebee gravity
Jose R. Nascimento, Ana R. M. Oliveira, Albert Yu. Petrov, Paulo J. Porfírio,... • 2026-03-30
Raw Data (Debug)
{
"raw_xml": "<entry>\n <id>http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.05659v1</id>\n <title>When Rubrics Fail: Error Enumeration as Reward in Reference-Free RL Post-Training for Virtual Try-On</title>\n <updated>2026-03-05T20:20:04Z</updated>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.05659v1' rel='alternate' type='text/html'/>\n <link href='https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.05659v1' rel='related' title='pdf' type='application/pdf'/>\n <summary>Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) and Rubrics as Rewards (RaR) have driven strong gains in domains with clear correctness signals and even in subjective domains by synthesizing evaluation criteria from ideal reference answers. But many real-world tasks admit multiple valid outputs and lack the single ideal answer that rubric generation depends on. We identify this reference-free setting as a gap in current post-training methods and propose Implicit Error Counting (IEC) to fill it. Instead of checking what a response gets right against a rubric, IEC enumerates what it gets wrong, applying severity-weighted scores across task-relevant axes and converting them into calibrated per-aspect rewards. We show that naïve explicit enumeration is too noisy for stable optimization, and that two design choices: implicit score emission and group calibration are necessary to make error counting a reliable reward. As a case study, we validate IEC on virtual try-on (VTO), a domain that is simultaneously too constrained for holistic scoring and too permissive for rubric-based evaluation: subtle garment errors are unacceptable, yet many output variations are correct. We introduce Cascaded Error Counting (CEC) as an evaluation metric, which tracks human preferences well (60% top-1 vs. 30% others), and curate Mismatch-DressCode (MDressBench), a benchmark with maximal attribute mismatch to stress-test reward designs. On MDressBench, IEC outperforms RaR across all metrics (CEC: 5.31 vs. 5.60 on flat references; 5.20 vs. 5.53 on non-flat). On VITON-HD and DressCode, IEC matches or surpasses six baselines on 6 of 8 perceptual metrics. These results suggest that when ideal answers are unavailable, counting errors provide a stronger signal than constructing rubrics.</summary>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.CV'/>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.AI'/>\n <category scheme='http://arxiv.org/schemas/atom' term='cs.LG'/>\n <published>2026-03-05T20:20:04Z</published>\n <arxiv:primary_category term='cs.CV'/>\n <author>\n <name>Wisdom Ikezogwo</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Mehmet Saygin Seyfioglu</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Ranjay Krishna</name>\n </author>\n <author>\n <name>Karim Bouyarmane</name>\n </author>\n </entry>"
}