Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Aarik Gulaya
Published
May 27, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
0/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
35% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Aug 19, 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
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
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
If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user. We introduce representational accuracy to measure how faithfully a system captures a person's interpretation. An interpretive layer is operationalized as a Behavioral Specification. Our reference implementation aggressively compresses a person's data into interpretive patterns, served as context to a language model. We evaluate the Specification on a prototype benchmark of held-out behavioral predictions scored by a calibrated 5-judge LLM panel. We test it independently and in composition with a range of context conditions: full raw corpus, full extracted facts, and four commercial memory systems (Mem0, Letta, Supermemory, Zep). Across 14 public-domain autobiographical corpora, the Specification lifts representational accuracy in aggregate and nearly eliminates model hedging. It recovers most of what the raw corpus delivers, at ~25x less context cost. The Specification lifts subjects toward a common predictive level regardless of pretraining baseline; the lift in absolute points is therefore largest where the baseline is lowest, suggesting the population of relevance is anyone not adequately represented in pretraining. Lift is greatest on interpretation-required questions, where providing an interpretive layer enables model behavior that extracted facts or raw corpus do not. Conversely, on recall-required questions, this layer can interfere rather than help. We conclude that representational accuracy is distinct from recall and that human-AI alignment is dependent on how accurately the user is represented. Representational accuracy makes that alignment testable.
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.
"If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user."
Accuracy, Recall, Relevance
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"We introduce representational accuracy to measure how faithfully a system captures a person's interpretation."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
If an AI agent makes decisions on a person's behalf, those decisions must align with its user.
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
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, recall, relevance