Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.CL + Pairwise Preference Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 254 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 254 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequent quality control: Inter Annotator Agreement Reported. Frequently cited benchmark: LMSYS Chatbot Arena. Common metric signal: accuracy. Use this page to compare protocol setup, judge behavior, and labeling design decisions before running new eval experiments. Newest paper in this set is from Jul 15, 2025.

Papers: 254 Last published: Jul 15, 2025 Global RSS Tag RSS
Cs.CLPairwise Preference

Researcher Quick Triage

This hub is best used for protocol triage and replication planning from abstract-level evidence. Quality band: High .

Analysis blocks below are computed from the currently loaded sample (60 of 254 total papers in this hub).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

17

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

1

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 17 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 1 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 9 papers report explicit quality controls (calibration/adjudication/IAA).

Primary action: Start with the top 2 papers in “Start Here”, then validate assumptions in the protocol matrix.

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 100% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 35% of papers in this hub.
  • LMSYS Chatbot Arena is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is inter-annotator agreement reporting (2.4% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly pairwise annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • LMSYS Chatbot Arena appears in 3.5% of hub papers (9/254); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • AlpacaEval appears in 2.8% of hub papers (7/254); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 17.3% of hub papers (44/254); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 7.1% of hub papers (18/254); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (100% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (4.3% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (18.1% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (39.8% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (11% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is strong (38.2% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (100% of papers).
  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.

Known Gaps

  • Only 4.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11% coverage).
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (18.1% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (LMSYS Chatbot Arena vs AlpacaEval) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.
Recommended Queries (Expanded)

Recommended Queries

Start with These 3

Use these when you need one protocol anchor, one benchmark anchor, and one recent comparison point before reading the wider hub.

Start Here (Best First 6)

Ranked for protocol completeness (human signal, benchmark + metric anchors, quality controls, and judge/human overlap).

Protocol Matrix (Top 12)

Use this to quickly compare protocol ingredients instead of scanning long prose.

Paper HF Signal Eval Modes Benchmarks Metrics QC
SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM Judging

Feb 13, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics MT Bench , LMSYS Chatbot Arena Error rate Calibration
Personalized RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models with Human Aligned Personalization

Apr 8, 2026

Yes Human Eval , Automatic Metrics Rewardbench Accuracy , Helpfulness Not Reported
Modeling and Benchmarking Spoken Dialogue Rewards with Modality and Colloquialness

Mar 16, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Esdr Bench Accuracy Not Reported
Do Phone-Use Agents Respect Your Privacy?

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics APPS , Myphonebench Task success Not Reported
ClimateCheck 2026: Scientific Fact-Checking and Disinformation Narrative Classification of Climate-related Claims

Mar 27, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Codabench Recall , Recall@k Not Reported
DSPA: Dynamic SAE Steering for Data-Efficient Preference Alignment

Mar 23, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics MT Bench , AlpacaEval Accuracy Not Reported
CausalRM: Causal-Theoretic Reward Modeling for RLHF from Observational User Feedbacks

Mar 19, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Harmbench Cost Not Reported
Elo-Evolve: A Co-evolutionary Framework for Language Model Alignment

Feb 14, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics MT Bench , AlpacaEval Elo Not Reported
PEARL: Self-Evolving Assistant for Time Management with Reinforcement Learning

Jan 17, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Calconflictbench Error rate Not Reported
Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence with 11B Active Parameters

Feb 11, 2026

Yes Not Reported LiveCodeBench , BrowseComp Latency , Cost Not Reported
MemoryArena: Benchmarking Agent Memory in Interdependent Multi-Session Agentic Tasks

Feb 18, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Memoryarena Recall Not Reported
From Consensus to Split Decisions: ABC-Stratified Sentiment in Holocaust Oral Histories

Mar 30, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Kappa , Agreement Inter Annotator Agreement Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

Fast side-by-side comparison for the highest-ranked papers in this hub.

Signal SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM J… Personalized RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models… Modeling and Benchmarking Spoken Dialogue Rewards w…
Human Feedback Pairwise PreferencePairwise Preference, Rubric RatingPairwise Preference
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsHuman Eval, Automatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks MT Bench, LMSYS Chatbot ArenaRewardbenchEsdr Bench
Metrics Error rateAccuracy, HelpfulnessAccuracy
Quality Controls CalibrationNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit PairwisePairwisePairwise
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

This section is intentionally expanded only when needed; use “Start Here” above for a faster pass.

Suggested Reading Order

  1. HyperMem: Hypergraph Memory for Long-Term Conversations

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: LLM-as-judge + pairwise preferences. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: However, existing approaches as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and graph-based memory mostly.

  2. LMUnit: Fine-grained Evaluation with Natural Language Unit Tests

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + pairwise preferences. Focus: Biggenbench / agreement. Abstract: As language models become integral to critical.

  3. Validating Political Position Predictions of Arguments

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + pairwise preferences. Focus: agreement. Abstract: Real-world knowledge representation often requires capturing subjective, continuous attributes.

  4. No Free Labels: Limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge Without Human Grounding

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge + pairwise preferences. Focus: MT-Bench / agreement. Abstract: The LLM-as-a-Judge framework, which uses prompted LLMs.

  5. Blinded Radiologist and LLM-Based Evaluation of LLM-Generated Japanese Translations of Chest CT Reports: Comparative Study

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge + pairwise preferences. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the educational suitability of LLM-generated Japanese.

  6. Let's Think in Two Steps: Mitigating Agreement Bias in MLLMs with Self-Grounded Verification

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + pairwise preferences. Focus: VisualWebArena / accuracy. Abstract: Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) offer.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 4.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Research Utility Snapshot

Human Feedback Mix

  • Pairwise Preference (254)
  • Rubric Rating (15)
  • Expert Verification (7)
  • Critique Edit (6)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (89)
  • Llm As Judge (20)
  • Human Eval (12)
  • Simulation Env (8)

Top Benchmarks

  • LMSYS Chatbot Arena (9)
  • AlpacaEval (7)
  • Arena Hard (5)
  • MT Bench (5)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (44)
  • Cost (18)
  • Agreement (13)
  • Relevance (11)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (26)
  • Mixed (2)

Quality Controls

  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (6)
  • Calibration (5)
  • Adjudication (1)
  • Gold Questions (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 100.0% · benchmarks 46.7% · metrics 76.7% · quality controls 15.0%.

Top Papers

  • Let's Think in Two Steps: Mitigating Agreement Bias in MLLMs with Self-Grounded Verification

    Moises Andrade, Joonhyuk Cha, Brandon Ho, Vriksha Srihari, Karmesh Yadav · Jul 15, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic MetricsSimulation Env Long Horizon

    We evaluate MLLM verifiers across web navigation, computer use, and robotics, spanning 13+ models, 28+ designs, and thousands of trajectories from diverse agents.

  • LMUnit: Fine-grained Evaluation with Natural Language Unit Tests

    Jon Saad-Falcon, Rajan Vivek, William Berrios, Nandita Shankar Naik, Matija Franklin · Dec 17, 2024 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Human Eval

    We introduce natural language unit tests, a paradigm that decomposes response quality into explicit, testable criteria, along with a unified scoring model, LMUnit, which combines multi-objective training across preferences, direct ratings,…

  • Validating Political Position Predictions of Arguments

    Jordan Robinson, Angus R. Williams, Katie Atkinson, Anthony G. Cohn · Feb 20, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Human Eval

    Real-world knowledge representation often requires capturing subjective, continuous attributes -- such as political positions -- that conflict with pairwise validation, the widely accepted gold standard for human evaluation.

  • SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM Judging

    Sher Badshah, Ali Emami, Hassan Sajjad · Feb 13, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to replace costly human preference labels in pairwise evaluation.

  • Personalized RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models with Human Aligned Personalization

    Qiyao Ma, Dechen Gao, Rui Cai, Boqi Zhao, Hanchu Zhou · Apr 8, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise PreferenceRubric Rating Human EvalAutomatic Metrics

    Pluralistic alignment has emerged as a critical frontier in the development of Large Language Models (LLMs), with reward models (RMs) serving as a central mechanism for capturing diverse human values.

  • No Free Labels: Limitations of LLM-as-a-Judge Without Human Grounding

    Michael Krumdick, Charles Lovering, Varshini Reddy, Seth Ebner, Chris Tanner · Mar 7, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Llm As Judge

    To address this gap, we introduce the Business and Finance Fundamentals Benchmark (BFF-Bench), a dataset of 160 challenging questions and long-form responses authored by financial professionals.

  • Elo-Evolve: A Co-evolutionary Framework for Language Model Alignment

    Jing Zhao, Ting Zhen, Junwei Bao, Hongfei Jiang, Yang Song · Feb 14, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics Multi Agent

    Current alignment methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) rely on compressing vast amounts of human preference data into static, absolute reward functions, leading to data scarcity, noise sensitivity, and training instability.

  • PEARL: Self-Evolving Assistant for Time Management with Reinforcement Learning

    Bingxuan Li, Jeonghwan Kim, Cheng Qian, Xiusi Chen, Eitan Anzenberg · Jan 17, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics Long Horizon

    To enable a systematic study of this question, we introduce CalConflictBench, a benchmark for long-horizon calendar conflict resolution.

  • Blinded Radiologist and LLM-Based Evaluation of LLM-Generated Japanese Translations of Chest CT Reports: Comparative Study

    Yosuke Yamagishi, Atsushi Takamatsu, Yasunori Hamaguchi, Tomohiro Kikuchi, Shouhei Hanaoka · Apr 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Llm As JudgeAutomatic Metrics

    A board-certified radiologist and a radiology resident independently performed blinded pairwise evaluations across 4 criteria: terminology accuracy, readability, overall quality, and radiologist-style authenticity.

  • VehicleMemBench: An Executable Benchmark for Multi-User Long-Term Memory in In-Vehicle Agents

    Yuhao Chen, Yi Xu, Xinyun Ding, Xiang Fang, Shuochen Liu · Mar 25, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Simulation Env Tool Use

    With the growing demand for intelligent in-vehicle experiences, vehicle-based agents are evolving from simple assistants to long-term companions.

  • LifeSim: Long-Horizon User Life Simulator for Personalized Assistant Evaluation

    Feiyu Duan, Xuanjing Huang, Zhongyu Wei · Mar 12, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Simulation Env Long Horizon

    However, existing benchmarks for personalized assistants remain misaligned with real-world user-assistant interactions, failing to capture the complexity of external contexts and users' cognitive states.

  • Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence with 11B Active Parameters

    Ailin Huang, Ang Li, Aobo Kong, Bin Wang, Binxing Jiao · Feb 11, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Tool Use

    We introduce Step 3.5 Flash, a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model that bridges frontier-level agentic intelligence and computational efficiency.

  • Decoupling Strategy and Execution in Task-Focused Dialogue via Goal-Oriented Preference Optimization

    Jingyi Xu, Xingyu Ren, Zhoupeng Shou, Yumeng Zhang, Zhiqiang You · Jan 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics Long Horizon

    To address this, we propose Goal-Oriented Preference Optimization (GOPO), a hierarchical reinforcement learning framework that decouples strategy planning from response generation via an Expert Agent and a Customer Service Agent.

  • MemoryArena: Benchmarking Agent Memory in Interdependent Multi-Session Agentic Tasks

    Zexue He, Yu Wang, Churan Zhi, Yuanzhe Hu, Tzu-Ping Chen · Feb 18, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics Web Browsing

    Existing evaluations of agents with memory typically assess memorization and action in isolation.

  • Build, Judge, Optimize: A Blueprint for Continuous Improvement of Multi-Agent Consumer Assistants

    Alejandro Breen Herrera, Aayush Sheth, Steven G. Xu, Zhucheng Zhan, Charles Wright · Mar 3, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise PreferenceRubric Rating Llm As JudgeSimulation Env Long Horizon

    Conversational shopping assistants (CSAs) represent a compelling application of agentic AI, but moving from prototype to production reveals two underexplored challenges: how to evaluate multi-turn interactions and how to optimize tightly…

  • EvolvR: Self-Evolving Pairwise Reasoning for Story Evaluation to Enhance Generation

    Xinda Wang, Zhengxu Hou, Yangshijie Zhang, Bingren Yan, Jialin Liu · Aug 8, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Llm As Judge Multi Agent

    Although the effectiveness of Large Language Models (LLMs) as judges (LLM-as-a-judge) has been validated, their performance remains limited in open-ended tasks, particularly in story evaluation.

  • Self-Preference Bias in Rubric-Based Evaluation of Large Language Models

    José Pombal, Ricardo Rei, André F. T. Martins · Apr 8, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise PreferenceRubric Rating Llm As Judge

    We present the first study of SPB in rubric-based evaluation, an increasingly popular benchmarking paradigm where judges issue binary verdicts on individual evaluation criteria, instead of assigning holistic scores or rankings.

  • IF-RewardBench: Benchmarking Judge Models for Instruction-Following Evaluation

    Bosi Wen, Yilin Niu, Cunxiang Wang, Xiaoying Ling, Ying Zhang · Mar 5, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Llm As Judge

    Instruction-following is a foundational capability of large language models (LLMs), with its improvement hinging on scalable and accurate feedback from judge models.

  • IntelliAsk: Learning to Ask High-Quality Research Questions via RLVR

    Karun Sharma, Vidushee Vats, Shengzhi Li, Yuxiang Wang, Zhongtian Sun · Jan 23, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise PreferenceExpert Verification Human Eval

    Peer review relies on substantive, evidence-based questions, yet current LLMs generate surface-level queries that perform worse than human reviewer questions in expert evaluation.

  • EditReward: A Human-Aligned Reward Model for Instruction-Guided Image Editing

    Keming Wu, Sicong Jiang, Max Ku, Ping Nie, Minghao Liu · Sep 30, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Llm As Judge

    To address this critical bottleneck, we built EditReward, trained with our new large-scale human preference dataset, meticulously annotated by trained experts following a rigorous protocol containing over 200K preference pairs.

  • From Consensus to Split Decisions: ABC-Stratified Sentiment in Holocaust Oral Histories

    Daban Q. Jaff · Mar 30, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    After assembling model outputs, we introduce an agreement-based stability taxonomy (ABC) to stratify inter-model output stability.

  • Measuring Faithfulness Depends on How You Measure: Classifier Sensitivity in LLM Chain-of-Thought Evaluation

    Richard J. Young · Mar 20, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    Three classifiers (a regex-only detector, a regex-plus-LLM pipeline, and a Claude Sonnet 4 judge) are applied to 10,276 influenced reasoning traces from 12 open-weight models spanning 9 families and 7B to 1T parameters.

  • RewardUQ: A Unified Framework for Uncertainty-Aware Reward Models

    Daniel Yang, Samuel Stante, Florian Redhardt, Lena Libon, Parnian Kassraie · Feb 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    Reward models are central to aligning large language models (LLMs) with human preferences.

  • Yor-Sarc: A gold-standard dataset for sarcasm detection in a low-resource African language

    Toheeb Aduramomi Jimoh, Tabea De Wille, Nikola S. Nikolov · Feb 21, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    This protocol incorporates context-sensitive interpretation and community-informed guidelines and is accompanied by a comprehensive analysis of inter-annotator agreement to support replication in other African languages.

  • MENLO: From Preferences to Proficiency -- Evaluating and Modeling Native-like Quality Across 47 Languages

    Chenxi Whitehouse, Sebastian Ruder, Tony Lin, Oksana Kurylo, Haruka Takagi · Sep 30, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise PreferenceRubric Rating Automatic Metrics

    To address this, we introduce MENLO, a framework that operationalizes the evaluation of native-like response quality based on audience design-inspired mechanisms.

  • Toward Safe and Human-Aligned Game Conversational Recommendation via Multi-Agent Decomposition

    Zheng Hui, Xiaokai Wei, Yexi Jiang, Kevin Gao, Chen Wang · Apr 26, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics Multi Agent

    These domains typically involve fixed content and passive consumption, where user preferences can be matched by genre or theme.

  • HyperMem: Hypergraph Memory for Long-Term Conversations

    Juwei Yue, Chuanrui Hu, Jiawei Sheng, Zuyi Zhou, Wenyuan Zhang · Apr 9, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Llm As JudgeAutomatic Metrics

    Long-term memory is essential for conversational agents to maintain coherence, track persistent tasks, and provide personalized interactions across extended dialogues.

  • PONTE: Personalized Orchestration for Natural Language Trustworthy Explanations

    Vittoria Vineis, Matteo Silvestri, Lorenzo Antonelli, Filippo Betello, Gabriele Tolomei · Mar 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Human Eval

    To address these challenges, we present PONTE (Personalized Orchestration for Natural language Trustworthy Explanations), a human-in-the-loop framework for adaptive and reliable XAI narratives.

  • VRM: Teaching Reward Models to Understand Authentic Human Preferences

    Biao Liu, Ning Xu, Junming Yang, Hao Xu, Xin Geng · Mar 5, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Human Eval

    Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse natural language tasks, yet the reward models employed for aligning LLMs often encounter challenges of reward hacking, where the approaches predominantly rely on…

  • HEART: A Unified Benchmark for Assessing Humans and LLMs in Emotional Support Dialogue

    Laya Iyer, Kriti Aggarwal, Sanmi Koyejo, Gail Heyman, Desmond C. Ong · Jan 9, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise PreferenceRubric Rating Human EvalLlm As Judge

    Despite rapid progress in language models, we still lack a clear way to understand how their abilities in these interpersonal domains compare to those of humans.

  • Signals: Trajectory Sampling and Triage for Agentic Interactions

    Shuguang Chen, Adil Hafeez, Salman Paracha · Apr 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics Long Horizon

    We propose a lightweight, signal-based framework for triaging agentic interaction trajectories.

  • Vibe Code Bench: Evaluating AI Models on End-to-End Web Application Development

    Hung Tran, Langston Nashold, Rayan Krishnan, Antoine Bigeard, Alex Gu · Mar 4, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics Web Browsing

    We introduce Vibe Code Bench, a benchmark of 100 web application specifications (50 public validation, 50 held-out test) with 964 browser-based workflows comprising 10,131 substeps, evaluated against deployed applications by an autonomous…

  • The Geometry of Dialogue: Graphing Language Models to Reveal Synergistic Teams for Multi-Agent Collaboration

    Kotaro Furuya, Yuichi Kitagawa · Oct 30, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics Multi Agent

    While a multi-agent approach based on large language models (LLMs) represents a promising strategy to surpass the capabilities of single models, its success is critically dependent on synergistic team composition.

  • Modeling and Benchmarking Spoken Dialogue Rewards with Modality and Colloquialness

    Jingyu Lu, Yuhan Wang, Fan Zhuo, Xize Cheng, Changhao Pan · Mar 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    To address these challenges, we introduce SDiaReward, an end-to-end multi-turn reward model trained on SDiaReward-Dataset, a novel collection of episode-level preference pairs explicitly targeting these gaps.

  • Do Compact SSL Backbones Matter for Audio Deepfake Detection? A Controlled Study with RAPTOR

    Ajinkya Kulkarni, Sandipana Dowerah, Atharva Kulkarni, Tanel Alumäe, Mathew Magimai Doss · Mar 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Long Horizon

    We present RAPTOR, Representation Aware Pairwise-gated Transformer for Out-of-domain Recognition a controlled study of compact SSL backbones from the HuBERT and WavLM within a unified pairwise-gated fusion detector, evaluated across 14…

  • $V_1$: Unifying Generation and Self-Verification for Parallel Reasoners

    Harman Singh, Xiuyu Li, Kusha Sareen, Monishwaran Maheswaran, Sijun Tan · Mar 4, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    On code generation (LiveCodeBench, CodeContests, SWE-Bench) and math reasoning (AIME, HMMT) benchmarks, V_1-Infer improves Pass@1 by up to 10% over pointwise verification and outperforms recent test-time scaling methods while being…

  • Duel-Evolve: Reward-Free Test-Time Scaling via LLM Self-Preferences

    Sweta Karlekar, Carolina Zheng, Magnus Saebo, Nicolas Beltran-Velez, Shuyang Yu · Feb 25, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    Building on this observation, we introduce Duel-Evolve, an evolutionary optimization algorithm that replaces external scalar rewards with pairwise preferences elicited from the same LLM used to generate candidates.

  • How Reliable is Language Model Micro-Benchmarking?

    Gregory Yauney, Shahzaib Saqib Warraich, Swabha Swayamdipta · Oct 9, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    We introduce a meta-evaluation measure for micro-benchmarking which investigates how well a micro-benchmark can rank two models as a function of their performance difference on the full benchmark.

  • Deep Research, Shallow Evaluation: A Case Study in Meta-Evaluation for Long-Form QA Benchmarks

    Jena D. Hwang, Varsha Kishore, Amanpreet Singh, Dany Haddad, Aakanksha Naik · Mar 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise PreferenceExpert Verification Llm As Judge

    This has prompted evaluation frameworks that use LLM-as-judge protocols and claim verification, along with meta-evaluation frameworks that seek to validate these methods.

  • From Control to Foresight: Simulation as a New Paradigm for Human-Agent Collaboration

    Gaole He, Brian Y. Lim · Mar 12, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Simulation Env Long Horizon

    Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to power autonomous agents for complex, multi-step tasks.

  • Think$^{2}$: Grounded Metacognitive Reasoning in Large Language Models

    Abraham Paul Elenjical, Vivek Hruday Kavuri, Vasudeva Varma · Feb 21, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Human Eval

    We introduce a psychologically grounded metacognitive framework that operationalizes Ann Brown's regulatory cycle (Planning, Monitoring, and Evaluation) as a structured prompting architecture, and study its integration within a lightweight…

  • RebuttalAgent: Strategic Persuasion in Academic Rebuttal via Theory of Mind

    Zhitao He, Zongwei Lyu, Yi R Fung · Jan 22, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise PreferenceCritique Edit Human Eval

    In this paper, we introduce RebuttalAgent, the first framework to ground academic rebuttal in Theory of Mind (ToM), operationalized through a ToM-Strategy-Response (TSR) framework that models reviewer mental state, formulates persuasion…

  • EasyAnimate: High-Performance Video Generation Framework with Hybrid Windows Attention and Reward Backpropagation

    Jiaqi Xu, Kunzhe Huang, Xinyi Zou, Yunkuo Chen, Bo Liu · May 29, 2024 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Human Eval

    To enhance video generation quality, we optimize EasyAnimate using reward backpropagation to better align with human preferences.

  • Tutoring Large Language Models to be Domain-adaptive, Precise, and Safe

    Somnath Banerjee · Feb 14, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Long Horizon

    The methodological trajectory moves from classical supervised adaptation for task-specific demands to decoding-time alignment for safety, finally leveraging human feedback and preference modeling to achieve sociolinguistic acuity.

  • Aligning Multimodal Sequential Recommendations via Robust Direct Preference Optimization with Sparse MoE

    Hejin Huang, Jusheng Zhang, Kaitong Cai, Jian Wang, Rong Pan · Mar 31, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    Preference-based alignment objectives have been widely adopted, from RLHF-style pairwise learning in large language models to emerging applications in recommender systems.

  • CRIMSON: A Clinically-Grounded LLM-Based Metric for Generative Radiology Report Evaluation

    Mohammed Baharoon, Thibault Heintz, Siavash Raissi, Mahmoud Alabbad, Mona Alhammad · Mar 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    We introduce CRIMSON, a clinically grounded evaluation framework for chest X-ray report generation that assesses reports based on diagnostic correctness, contextual relevance, and patient safety.

  • DARS: Dysarthria-Aware Rhythm-Style Synthesis for ASR Enhancement

    Minghui Wu, Xueling Liu, Jiahuan Fan, Haitao Tang, Yanyong Zhang · Mar 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Simulation Env

    DARS incorporates a multi-stage rhythm predictor optimized by contrastive preferences between normal and dysarthric speech, along with a dysarthric-style conditional flow matching mechanism, jointly enhancing temporal rhythm reconstruction…

  • Multi-Objective Alignment of Language Models for Personalized Psychotherapy

    Mehrab Beikzadeh, Yasaman Asadollah Salmanpour, Ashima Suvarna, Sriram Sankararaman, Matteo Malgaroli · Feb 17, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise PreferenceExpert Verification Automatic Metrics

    While AI systems show therapeutic promise, current alignment approaches optimize objectives independently, failing to balance patient preferences with clinical safety.

  • Readers Prefer Outputs of AI Trained on Copyrighted Books over Expert Human Writers

    Tuhin Chakrabarty, Jane C. Ginsburg, Paramveer Dhillon · Oct 15, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    In blind pairwise evaluations by 28 MFA-trained readers and 516 college-educated general readers, AI text from in-context prompting was strongly disfavored by MFA readers for stylistic fidelity (OR=0.16) and quality (OR=0.13), while general…

  • PrefDisco: Benchmarking Proactive Personalized Reasoning

    Shuyue Stella Li, Avinandan Bose, Faeze Brahman, Simon Shaolei Du, Pang Wei Koh · Sep 30, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise PreferenceRubric Rating Automatic Metrics

    We introduce PrefDisco, an evaluation methodology that transforms static benchmarks into interactive personalization tasks using psychologically-grounded personas with sparse, context-dependent preferences, and define PrefAlign as a…

  • TaoSR1: The Thinking Model for E-commerce Relevance Search

    Chenhe Dong, Shaowei Yao, Pengkun Jiao, Jianhui Yang, Yiming Jin · Aug 17, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Human Eval

    Our framework, TaoSR1, involves three stages: (1) Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) with CoT to instill reasoning; (2) Offline sampling with a pass@N strategy and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to improve generation quality; and (3)…

  • Moving Beyond Medical Exams: A Clinician-Annotated Fairness Dataset of Real-World Tasks and Ambiguity in Mental Healthcare

    Max Lamparth, Declan Grabb, Amy Franks, Scott Gershan, Kaitlyn N. Kunstman · Feb 22, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise PreferenceExpert Verification Automatic Metrics

    Current medical language model (LM) benchmarks often over-simplify the complexities of day-to-day clinical practice tasks and instead rely on evaluating LMs on multiple-choice board exam questions.

  • LLM Prompt Duel Optimizer: Efficient Label-Free Prompt Optimization

    Yuanchen Wu, Saurabh Verma, Justin Lee, Fangzhou Xiong, Poppy Zhang · Oct 14, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference

    We propose the Prompt Duel Optimizer (PDO), a sample-efficient framework for label-free prompt optimization based on pairwise preference feedback from an LLM judge.

  • Do Phone-Use Agents Respect Your Privacy?

    Zhengyang Tang, Ke Ji, Xidong Wang, Zihan Ye, Xinyuan Wang · Apr 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    We study whether phone-use agents respect privacy while completing benign mobile tasks.

  • ClimateCheck 2026: Scientific Fact-Checking and Disinformation Narrative Classification of Climate-related Claims

    Raia Abu Ahmad, Max Upravitelev, Aida Usmanova, Veronika Solopova, Georg Rehm · Mar 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    In addition to standard evaluation metrics (Recall@K and Binary Preference), we adapt an automated framework to assess retrieval quality under incomplete annotations, exposing systematic biases in how conventional metrics rank systems.

  • DSPA: Dynamic SAE Steering for Data-Efficient Preference Alignment

    James Wedgwood, Aashiq Muhamed, Mona T. Diab, Virginia Smith · Mar 23, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    Preference alignment is usually achieved by weight-updating training on preference data, which adds substantial alignment-stage compute and provides limited mechanistic visibility.

  • CausalRM: Causal-Theoretic Reward Modeling for RLHF from Observational User Feedbacks

    Hao Wang, Licheng Pan, Zhichao Chen, Chunyuan Zheng, Zhixuan Chu · Mar 19, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    Despite the success of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) in aligning language models, current reward modeling heavily relies on experimental feedback data collected from human annotators under controlled and costly…

  • Sabiá-4 Technical Report

    Thiago Laitz, Thales Sales Almeida, Hugo Abonizio, Roseval Malaquias Junior, Giovana Kerche Bonás · Mar 10, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics Tool Use

    The models were developed through a four-stage training pipeline: continued pre-training on Portuguese and Brazilian legal corpora, long-context extension to 128K tokens, supervised fine-tuning on instruction data spanning chat, code, legal…

  • AILS-NTUA at SemEval-2026 Task 12: Graph-Based Retrieval and Reflective Prompting for Abductive Event Reasoning

    Nikolas Karafyllis, Maria Lymperaiou, Giorgos Filandrianos, Athanasios Voulodimos, Giorgos Stamou · Mar 4, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    We present a winning three-stage system for SemEval 2026 Task~12: Abductive Event Reasoning that combines graph-based retrieval, LLM-driven abductive reasoning with prompt design optimized through reflective prompt evolution, and post-hoc…

  • Modeling Distinct Human Interaction in Web Agents

    Faria Huq, Zora Zhiruo Wang, Zhanqiu Guo, Venu Arvind Arangarajan, Tianyue Ou · Feb 19, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics Web Browsing

    In this work, we introduce the task of modeling human intervention to support collaborative web task execution.

Related Hubs

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.