Reward models play an essential role in aligning visual generative models, yet most existing visual reward models use a single scalar score or rely on fixed criteria that cannot adapt to different instructions. This limits both interpretability and task sensitivity, especially for text-to-image generation and instruction-based image editing, where different inputs require different evaluation dimensions. We propose RubricRM, a pairwise generative reward modeling framework that first produces an input-specific rubric with evaluation dimensions, weights, and scoring criteria, and then applies the rubric to score candidate images. We train dedicated RubricRM models for text-to-image generation and image editing using a two-stage training pipeline: supervised fine-tuning teaches the model the rubric-based scoring paradigm, while GRPO further improves scoring through fine-grained dimension-level rewards. Experiments on multiple generation and editing benchmarks show that RubricRM outperforms existing specialized reward models and remains competitive with strong proprietary MLLM judges despite using smaller backbones. Our models, data, and code are available at https://github.com/zijiankan/RubricRM.

Knowledge Editing-Efficiently modifying the knowledge in large language models has gathered great attention. Current benchmarks primarily use multi-hop question answering to assess and analyze newly injected or updated knowledge. However, we argue that these benchmarks fail to effectively evaluate how well the updated models apply this knowledge in real-life scenarios, particularly when questions require complex reasoning involving one-to-many relationships or multi-step logical intersections. To fill in this gap, we introduce a new benchmark, COMPKE: Complex Question Answering under Knowledge Editing, which includes 11,924 complex questions that reflect real-life situations. We perform a comprehensive evaluation of four different knowledge editing methods in COMPKE, and our results show that the performance of these methods varies between different models. For example, MeLLo achieves an accuracy of 39.47 on GPT-4o-mini but drops significantly to 3.83 on Qwen2.5-3B. We further analyze the reasons behind these results from both methodological and model perspectives. Our dataset will be publicly available on GitHub.