Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL)."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Rishabh Tiwari, Kusha Sareen, Lakshya A Agrawal, Joseph E. Gonzalez +5 more
Published
May 12, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
0/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
15% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
May 14, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
Background context only.
What to verify
Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.
Main weakness
This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL). However, updating parameters forces them to absorb task-specific information, which can result in catastrophic forgetting and loss of plasticity. In contrast, in-context learning with fixed LLM parameters can cheaply and rapidly adapt to task-specific requirements (e.g., prompt optimization), but cannot by itself typically match the performance gains available through updating LLM parameters. There is no good reason for restricting learning to being in-context or in-weights. Moreover, humans also likely learn at different time scales (e.g., System 1 vs 2). To this end, we introduce a fast-slow learning framework for LLMs, with model parameters as "slow" weights and optimized context as "fast" weights. These fast "weights" can learn from textual feedback to absorb the task-specific information, while allowing slow weights to stay closer to the base model and persist general reasoning behaviors. Fast-Slow Training (FST) is up to 3x more sample-efficient than only slow learning (RL) across reasoning tasks, while consistently reaching a higher performance asymptote. Moreover, FST-trained models remain closer to the base LLM (up to 70% less KL divergence), resulting in less catastrophic forgetting than RL-training. This reduced drift also preserves plasticity: after training on one task, FST trained models adapt more effectively to a subsequent task than parameter-only trained models. In continual learning scenarios, where task domains change on the fly, FST continues to acquire each new task while parameter-only RL stalls.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL)."
None explicit
Validate eval design from full paper text.
"Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL)."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL)."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL)."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL)."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
Large language models (LLMs) are trained for downstream tasks by updating their parameters (e.g., via RL).
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
No clear evaluation mode extracted.
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
No metric terms extracted.