Human Feedback Types
strongRubric Rating
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"Long-horizon personalized agents maintain an evolving memory by continuously deciding what to add, modify, or discard."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Yupeng Han, Kai Zhang, Shuochen Liu, Ze Liu +5 more
Published
Nov 10, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Moderate
Usefulness score
65/100 (Medium)
Extraction confidence
70% (Moderate)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Nov 10, 2026
This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.
Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.
Best use
Secondary protocol comparison source
Use if you need
A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
No major weakness surfaced.
Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Long-horizon personalized agents maintain an evolving memory by continuously deciding what to add, modify, or discard. However, learning an optimal update policy remains challenging. Conventional training relies solely on terminal question-answering accuracy, yielding a coarse feedback signal that treats all intermediate updates identically. Furthermore, update utility is inherently user-specific, as identical memory actions may yield opposite effects across different user personas. Existing methods fail to address this heterogeneity, relying on globally shared evaluation standards with at most a single scalar intermediate reward. To address these challenges, we propose \textbf{Personalized Memory Rubrics} (\textbf{PMR}), a framework that translates terminal feedback into fine-grained, per-step, and per-user credit assignment. PMR decomposes evaluation into a universal layer capturing cross-persona failure patterns and a per-user adaptive layer modeling individual traits as a specialized delta over the universal baseline. Through \textbf{Rubric-Guided Credit Assignment}, PMR redistributes credit at the token level, selectively amplifying validated decisions on successful trajectories while falling back to standard policy optimization on failed ones to avoid unreliable attribution. The rubric and memory policy \textbf{co-evolve} in a closed loop with anti-circularity guarantees. Crucially, PMR incurs zero inference overhead, operating without any rubric or external judge during deployment. Extensive experiments across four benchmarks demonstrate consistent gains over strong memory-augmented baselines.
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.
Rubric Rating
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"Long-horizon personalized agents maintain an evolving memory by continuously deciding what to add, modify, or discard."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"Long-horizon personalized agents maintain an evolving memory by continuously deciding what to add, modify, or discard."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Long-horizon personalized agents maintain an evolving memory by continuously deciding what to add, modify, or discard."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Long-horizon personalized agents maintain an evolving memory by continuously deciding what to add, modify, or discard."
Accuracy
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"Conventional training relies solely on terminal question-answering accuracy, yielding a coarse feedback signal that treats all intermediate updates identically."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
Long-horizon personalized agents maintain an evolving memory by continuously deciding what to add, modify, or discard.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
Detected: Rubric Rating
Evaluation mode is explicit
Detected: Automatic Metrics
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
Detected: accuracy