Skip to content
← Back to explorer

LFQA-HP-1M: A Large-Scale Human Preference Dataset for Long-Form Question Answering

Rafid Ishrak Jahan, Fahmid Shahriar Iqbal, Sagnik Ray Choudhury · Feb 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

General Pairwise Preference Rubric Rating
Open arXiv RSS feed

Abstract

Long-form question answering (LFQA) demands nuanced evaluation of multi-sentence explanatory responses, yet existing metrics often fail to reflect human judgment. We present LFQA-HP-1M, a large-scale dataset comprising 1.3M human pairwise preference annotations for LFQA. We propose nine rubrics for answer quality evaluation, and show that simple linear models based on these features perform comparably to state-of-the-art LLM evaluators. We further examine transitivity consistency, positional bias, and verbosity biases in LLM evaluators and demonstrate their vulnerability to adversarial perturbations. Overall, this work provides one of the largest public LFQA preference datasets and a rubric-driven framework for transparent and reliable evaluation.

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper has direct human-feedback and/or evaluation protocol signal and is likely useful for eval pipeline design.

Eval-Fit Score

40/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

High-confidence candidate

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Pairwise Preference, Rubric Rating
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Pairwise
  • Expertise required: General
  • Extraction source: Persisted extraction

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.45
  • Flags: ambiguous, runtime_fallback_extraction

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

Long-form question answering (LFQA) demands nuanced evaluation of multi-sentence explanatory responses, yet existing metrics often fail to reflect human judgment. HFEPX signals include Pairwise Preference, Rubric Rating with confidence 0.45. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 3, 2026, 7:17 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • Long-form question answering (LFQA) demands nuanced evaluation of multi-sentence explanatory responses, yet existing metrics often fail to reflect human judgment.
  • We present LFQA-HP-1M, a large-scale dataset comprising 1.3M human pairwise preference annotations for LFQA.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare its human-feedback setup against pairwise and rubric hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Verify metric definitions before comparing against your eval pipeline.

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Extraction confidence is probabilistic and should be validated for critical decisions.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Long-form question answering (LFQA) demands nuanced evaluation of multi-sentence explanatory responses, yet existing metrics often fail to reflect human judgment.
  • We present LFQA-HP-1M, a large-scale dataset comprising 1.3M human pairwise preference annotations for LFQA.
  • We propose nine rubrics for answer quality evaluation, and show that simple linear models based on these features perform comparably to state-of-the-art LLM evaluators.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We present LFQA-HP-1M, a large-scale dataset comprising 1.3M human pairwise preference annotations for LFQA.
  • We propose nine rubrics for answer quality evaluation, and show that simple linear models based on these features perform comparably to state-of-the-art LLM evaluators.

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Pairwise Preference, Rubric Rating

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.

Post a Job Get a Quote