2026· Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics· pp. 16649-16688· 0 citations· 61 references
Computer Science
TL;DR
This work proposes that AI feedback is most effective when decomposed into granular, prompt-specific checklists, and introduces DIVA: DIscriminative VAriance weighting, a dynamic aggregation scheme that prioritises checklist items based on their ability to distinguish quality across a candidate pool.
Abstract
Much recent progress in Large Language Model (LLM) performance has been driven by verifiable feedback in deterministic domains like mathematics and code. However, scaling reinforcement learning (RL) and test-time compute in domains for which strict verification is infeasible remains a challenge. A common approach is to use an LLM-as-judge, which often relies on opaque, monolithic scores. In this work, we propose that AI feedback is most effective when decomposed into granular, prompt-specific checklists. To transform these checklists into a scalar reward, we introduce DIVA: DIscriminative VAriance weighting, a dynamic aggregation scheme that prioritises checklist items based on their ability to distinguish quality across a candidate pool. This ensures the reward signal focuses on the most salient criteria for a given prompt and response group, rather than being diluted by trivial or redundant constraints. Our approach yields an 11.8% win-rate improvement on AlpacaEval 2.0 using Qwen3-8B, outperforming holistic reward models and existing checklist baselines. Beyond training, we show that these checklists serve as a structured policy improvement operator at inference time — by using the model’s own checklist evaluation as localised contextual feedback, the model can iteratively refine its output. This self-correction mechanism out-performs free-form sequential self-correction, offering a unified and interpretable framework for scaling both training-time and test-time performance in domains lacking strict verifiers.
This work compares a baseline Academic Supervision Assistant, a GPT-5 chatbot with no scaffolding, against a multi-module system, Academic Supervision System (ASuS) that wraps the much smaller GPT-4o-mini in a LangGraph harness, and argues that where reliability, traceability, and institutional consistency matter more than open-ended fluency, harness engineering challenges the prevailing'bigger model is better'intuition.
The first compute-normalised comparison of five TTS families across five open-ended generation benchmarks spanning medicine, law, finance, general chat, and creative writing is conducted - grounded in a unified framework that decomposes the effectiveness of each method's token budget into exploration and exploitation.
Davide Romano, Kanak Raj, Jerrod Parker et al.· 0 citations
ConfidenceBench, a calibration benchmark that evaluates verbalized confidence estimates in 15 frontier LLMs using the Brier score, a proper scoring rule that incentivises truthful probability reporting shows that verbalized confidence calibration is a distinct and practically important axis of LLM reliability, complementary to standard accuracy-based evaluation.
M. ffrench-Constant, Daniel Yang, Xinmeng Huang et al.· 1 citation· ⚡1
The Lit2Test benchmark centers on a six-field contract organized around a falsifying outcome, so that every proposal precommits the observation that would prove it wrong, making its quality decidable in the first place rather than merely arguable.
Ziyue Wang, Aomufei Yuan, Yiran Yao et al.· 0 citations
Take three frontier mixture-of-experts models (Alibaba, OpenAI, NVIDIA; 3.6-4.0B active parameters each) and fine-tune them to reason in a low-resource language. On accuracy benchmarks almost nothing happens, and the benchmark itself is noise at this scale: changing only the random seed moves the score by 7.7 points, more than every data and recipe effect we measured. That null is our first result. The real changes live where accuracy cannot see. Base models never think in Greek: 0 of 1,000 reasoning traces, even when the question is Greek, so the model answers correctly while reasoning in a form its user cannot read, audit, or correct. After supervised fine-tuning (SFT), every released checkpoint reasons in the language of the question on ~98% of items, one family at 3x fewer tokens, with judged grammaticality improving on all four models and general ability within a few points of each base: nothing was forgotten, and fluency was gained. We propose six behavioural dimensions that make such changes measurable, each gated to reject any metric that correlates with output length, and we report how our own instruments lied: six failures, each caught by a control. What SFT cannot do is fix its own defects: a quarter of answers skip the requested format, answers leak into the reasoning channel, and an explicit"think in English"is obeyed under half the time. Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards, pre-registered before training, fixes the first two outright (fallback 24% to 2.5%, leak 3.5% to 0.0%, both against a flat random-reward control) and moves the third (+9.1pp), while the Greek reasoning habit survives an accuracy-only gradient untouched. We release five checkpoints. The instruments, the controls and the pre-registration travel to any low-resource language; Greek is the case that let us measure them.
LLM-as-judge is essential for evaluating open-ended text and steering post-training, yet improving the judge itself typically relies on expensive annotations, reward models, or distillation from stronger teachers. In this work, we eliminate external gold supervision from the RL training reward: the model's own evaluative capability generates learning signals for its optimization -- a closed-loop setting of bounded recursive self-improvement (RSI) termed Recursive Self-Evaluation (RecurSE). We study two central questions: when can self-improvement occur, and when must it stop? First, RecurSE pairs a trainable judge evaluating candidate responses under per-rule rubrics (Pass 1) with a synchronized policy-copy checker that audits the judge's reasoning against meta-rubrics to supply a scalar process reward (Pass 2). To enable learning, interface decoupling structurally isolates the checker's scalar score from the judge's verdict tokens, eliminating a degenerative token-copying shortcut that inflates self-assigned rewards. Second, because unanchored recursive learning is inherently bounded, Pairwise Advantage Validity (PAV) serves as an unbiased validation monitor that jointly tracks judge accuracy and checker fidelity to reliably identify the optimal early-stopping window. Across Qwen3.5-9B, Gemma-4-E4B-it, and Qwen3.6-27B, RecurSE achieves consistent generalization gains across held-out medical, pairwise, summarization, and professional benchmarks. Ablations demonstrate that synchronized judge-checker co-evolution outperforms frozen checkers, external meta-judges, self-consistency, and scaled teacher distillation. Furthermore, preference pairs curated by our judge effectively enhance downstream policy alignment. Bounded RSI for LLM-as-judge is thus viable when self-produced reward validity is explicitly decoupled and monitored.
Kaiyuan Liu, Ziyuan Zhuang, Rongxiang Weng et al.· 0 citations
