IROH: Insightful Ranking Of Humor using Multi-Stage Hybrid Retrieval with Rationale-Distilled LLM Judges for JOKER 2026 Track Task 1 English

We present RAGthoven, our system for SemEval-2026 Task 1 (MWAHAHA), Subtask A (multilingual constrained humor generation in English, Spanish, and Chinese). RAGthoven decomposes creative text generation into a multi-stage large language model (LLM) pipeline (Planner, Best-of-N Writer, Reflector for self-critique, LLM-as-a-judge Judge) grounded in computational humor theory (Benign Violation Theory, Script-based Semantic Theory of Humor) and refined across ten experiments. In our final configuration, we augment the Planner with retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) from a curated joke corpus, seeding generation with diverse joke mechanisms. We also evaluate two agentic variants -- ReAct-style sequential tool-calling (Exp09) and autonomous multi-branch orchestration (Exp10) -- that expose the same four stages with a deterministic ConstraintAudit checker. Across four frontier models on a held-out 12-instance English sample, neither agentic variant produced outputs we judged superior to the non-agentic pipeline despite substantially higher tool-call budgets. RAGthoven shares Rank 1 with the Gemini 2.5 Flash baseline in all three languages, with overlapping organizer-reported confidence intervals. In Spanish, it leads the baseline by 42 raw Elo points (1182 vs. 1140), while in English (1045 vs. 1081) and Chinese (1045 vs. 1053) the baseline holds the higher raw rating within the same statistical tie. Together, these results suggest language-dependent diminishing returns from elaborate multi-stage prompt engineering and agentic scaffolding once a strong frontier model is in the loop.

As interactive LLM-based applications are created and refined, model developers need to evaluate the quality of generated text along many possible axes. For simpler systems, human evaluation may be practical, but in complicated systems like conversational chatbots, the amount of generated text can overwhelm human annotation resources. Model developers have begun to rely heavily on auto-evaluation, where LLMs are also used to judge generation quality. However, existing LLM-as-a-judge benchmarks largely focus on simple Q&A tasks that do not match the complexity of multi-turn conversations. We introduce RankJudge, a benchmark generator for evaluating LLM-as-a-judge on multi-turn conversations grounded in reference documents. RankJudge creates pairs of conversations where one conversation has a single flaw injected into one turn. This construction allows paired conversations to be labeled unambiguously as better or worse, and precisely isolates failure categories to individual turns, enabling a strict joint correctness criterion for judging. We implement RankJudge across the domains of machine learning, biomedicine, and finance, evaluate 21 frontier LLM judges, and rank those judges via the Bradley-Terry model. Our formulation also allows ranking each conversation pair with difficulty ratings, which we use to dynamically curate the evaluation slice to reduce label noise, as confirmed via human annotation. We find that judge rankings are stable under partial observability, coarser correctness criteria, and an alternative random-walk rating algorithm.

LLM-as-a-judge is now the default measurement instrument for open-ended generation, but on the public JudgeBench benchmark even strong instruction-tuned judges barely scrape past random on objective-correctness pairwise items. We introduce RTLC, a three-stage prompting recipe -- Research, Teach-to-Learn, Critique -- that promotes a single black-box LLM into an ensemble-of-thought judge with no fine-tuning, retrieval, or external tools. Stage 1 wraps the input in a fixed pedagogical scaffold porting the Feynman Learning Technique (study $\to$ teach $\to$ find gaps $\to$ simplify) into LLM prompting. Stage 2 draws N=10 independent candidate verdicts at temperature 0.4. Stage 3 acts as its own critic, cross-comparing the candidate set against the original question to emit one critiqued verdict at temperature 0. On JudgeBench-GPT (350 hard pairwise items), Claude 3.7 Sonnet's pairwise accuracy climbs from 64.6% (single-shot vanilla prompt) to 78.6% (RTLC critique-of-10) -- an absolute 14.0-percentage-point gain. RTLC also beats N=10 self-consistency majority voting (77.7%) and a zero-shot first candidate (74.0%). A clean three-step ablation attributes +9.4 pp to the Teach-to-Learn scaffold, +3.7 pp to N=10 marginalisation, and +0.9 pp to explicit critique. We discuss the cost-accuracy frontier (RTLC sits above self-consistency at every working point), the error-budget breakdown across the four JudgeBench categories (knowledge, reasoning, math, coding), and how RTLC composes orthogonally with post-hoc judge-score calibration, with the two interventions compounding multiplicatively in practice.