Comparative Judgment

Adding answer options can lower multiple-choice scores without improving assessment validity. Turkish MMLU Pro examines this distinction using 12,000 Turkish-source questions across 58 sections. Each question retains its stem, five original options and source key, and receives five options copied from other questions in the same section. Sentence-embedding retrieval proposes candidates; a language model selects existing identifiers. Deterministic verification reconstructs all 60,000 additions. A 25-model calibration exposes scoring and generation-budget effects. Five evaluations produce source-key accuracies of 34.8%-81.4%. On 981 shared questions, one API-served model falls from 93.7% with five choices to 83.1% with ten; 102 of 115 lost correct responses select borrowed options. The decrease is 24.4 percentage points on heuristically flagged negative stems and 5.9 points elsewhere. A completed human-checked audit of 200 sampled questions, with undocumented reviewer tool use, yields 47 and 31 multiple-answer judgments across the two record sets, 25 of the latter unresolved. These records support concern about ambiguity, while their dependence and incomplete reviewer-method documentation limit validation. Because order and labels also change, the paired comparison measures augmentation as implemented. The contribution is a traceable construction and an analysis of its validity limits, not evidence that lower ten-choice scores measure knowledge better.

Sampling from distributions conditioned on desired semantic properties is an emerging challenge in modern generative modeling. Metropolis-Hastings (MH) provides a principled route to conditional sampling, but requires access to exact pointwise target-density evaluations, which are not available in generative settings. Meanwhile, pairwise comparisons by humans or model "judge" are highly accessible and have proved valuable across diverse applications. We introduce Pref-MH, a general exact MH sampler for judge-induced conditional distributions using only stochastic binary pairwise comparisons. Our key observation is that the MH unnormalized density ratio matches the preference odds of the Bradley-Terry (BT) choice model. The central challenge is that while MH requires precise ratio computation, BT judges provide only sampled binary feedback. To this end, we develop a valid accept/reject rule whose resulting Markov chain provably converges to the target distribution. We further show that, for a fixed proposal kernel and budget, Pref-MH is optimal in the Peskun-Tierney sense among this class of exact reversible acceptance rules. Experiments on text generation and molecular design with LLM judges, as well as image generation with VLM judges, demonstrate that Pref-MH provides a practical and flexible approach to conditional sampling when comparative feedback is relatively easy to obtain.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate apparently highly persuasive text, but does sounding persuasive mean arguing well? We introduce \textsc{Persuasio}, a multi-agent dialogue platform grounded in a formal argumentation-based theory of persuasion dialogues that adjudicates logical winners during free-text debates. Using this system, we generated 192 debates on a UK political topic between humans and LLMs, and evaluated 22 interlocutors through both automated adjudication and 9,702 crowdsourced pairwise judgements across 1{,}386 annotation instances. We observed a consistent decoupling between subjective and formal persuasiveness: LLMs dominated the subjective ranking yet performed substantially worse under argumentation-theoretic adjudication, where humans remained competitive. Multi-agent and retrieval-augmented variants further widened this divergence. These findings reveal a systematic gap between rhetorical fluency and formal argumentative strength in LLM-based persuasive dialogues.

Understanding both expressed and evoked emotions is critical for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) to achieve comprehensive affect-aware interactions. However, existing benchmarks typically examine expressed and evoked emotions in isolation or are constrained to coarse-grained and incomplete affective characterizations. To bridge this gap, we introduce E$^3$mo-Bench, a scalable benchmark comprising $12{,}314$ question-answer pairs across $2{,}524$ videos with predefined affective perspectives. It evaluates evoked and expressed emotion understanding via $3$ complementary tasks: emotion perception, open-vocabulary recognition, and valence-arousal-dominance (VAD) assessment. To efficiently scale reliable continuous annotations, we propose Bayesian Pairwise Alignment, which aggregates sparse, low-burden pairwise judgments into anchor-referenced VAD estimates. Furthermore, we develop E$^3$mo-Score, a training-free agent that aggregates complementary judgments from a five-model committee to improve VAD estimation. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of our framework and expose a pronounced performance skew between evoked and expressed emotion paradigms. These findings, coupled with MLLMs' persistent deficits in fine-grained recognition and dimensional assessment, chart a clear course for advancing multimodal emotional intelligence.

Systems often need to combine two numerical assessments of the same yes/no question. The appropriate formula depends on what the numbers represent and on how the sources are related. Averaging is correct when one of several alternative interpretations applies; multiplying odds is correct when probability reports are based on conditionally independent evidence and a common prior; and probabilities of alternative successful derivations require their dependence or shared evidence to be taken into account. We state the assumptions behind several common combination rules and derive the corresponding combined probabilities. Two groups of Monte Carlo experiments address different questions. First, controlled generating mechanisms verify that the derived rule recovers the correct probability in the situations for which its assumptions hold. Second, the same mechanisms measure the consequences of using a mismatched rule, using logarithmic score and threshold decisions with different costs. Distinct pooling rules can produce the same binary decision at threshold 1/2 while assigning substantially different probabilities, so binary accuracy alone can conceal important differences. We also give probabilistic interpretations of conflicting-evidence rules and show that, for overlapping derivations, retaining the identities of shared uncertain premises permits direct calculation of the probability that at least one derivation is available. Pairwise combination of proof probabilities loses information when there are three or more derivations.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as relevance assessors in information retrieval (IR) evaluation, raising questions about how assessor framing affects judgment reliability and downstream system comparison. We study persona conditioning as a diagnostic mechanism for exposing LLM assessor sensitivity. Using task-oriented personas drawn from two complementary sources (PersonaHub and NVIDIA Nemotron-Personas-USA), we instantiate five assessor roles emphasizing intent interpretation, domain expertise, contrastive judgment, evidence verification, and global search-quality assessment, compared with a standard UMBRELA baseline. Across six LLM backbones on TREC DL20 and RAG24, our analyses reveal structured rather than uniform assessor sensitivity. Judgments usually remain close to the baseline while shifting assessment strictness, evidential threshold, or interpretation emphasis rather than producing widespread relevance reversals. At the system level, high-capacity models preserve system-ranking agreement, while smaller models amplify persona-induced instability. Local rank-displacement analysis shows sensitivity concentrates on particular retrieval systems and system types, especially neural ranking/reranking systems on DL20 and RAG-oriented pipelines on RAG24. Persona source matters less than assessor role and model capacity. These findings position persona-conditioned judging as a controlled sensitivity probe for stress-testing LLM-based IR evaluation pipelines and identifying systems whose evaluation outcomes are sensitive to assessor framing.

Human-centered assessment tasks, which are essential for systematic decision-making, rely heavily on human judgment and typically lack verifiable ground truth. Existing approaches face a dilemma: methods using only human judgments suffer from heterogeneous expertise and inconsistent rating scales, while methods using only model-generated scores must learn from imperfect proxies or incomplete features. We propose Aggregate-then-Calibrate (AtC), a two-stage framework that combines these complementary sources. Stage-1 aggregates heterogeneous comparative judgments into a consensus ranking using a rank-aggregation model that accounts for annotator reliability. Stage-2 calibrates any predictive model's scores by an isotonic projection onto the order, enforcing ordinal consistency while preserving as much of the model's quantitative information as possible. Theoretically, we show: (1) modeling annotator heterogeneity yields strictly more efficient consensus estimation than homogeneity; (2) isotonic calibration enjoys risk bounds even when the consensus ranking is misspecified; and (3) AtC asymptotically outperforms model-only assessment. Across semi-synthetic and real-world datasets, AtC consistently improves accuracy and robustness over human-only or model-only assessments. Our results bridge judgment aggregation with model-free calibration, providing a principled recipe for human-centered assessment when ground truth is costly, scarce, or unverifiable.

Emotion-cause pair extraction in conversation (ECPEC) identifies utterance pairs in which one utterance causes an emotion expressed in another. Recent LLM-based approaches formulate ECPEC at markedly different granularities, ranging from generating complete pair sets to judging individual candidate pairs. In this paper, we make the surprising observation that task formulation substantially affects performance, where pair-level judgement outperforms dialogue-level generation in all 18 controlled comparisons. We investigate the sources of this paradigm gap and find that many relations omitted by dialogue-level generation remain recognizable under explicit pair queries, under which the model recognizes 92.7%-98.1% of emotion-cause relations. This suggests that LLMs can recognize emotion-cause relations but struggle to discover and return complete pair sets. Pair-level judgement alleviates this burden, although its candidate rankings are more reliable than the binary decisions produced by a shared threshold. Based on this diagnosis, we introduce an auxiliary retriever that selectively re-examines ambiguous boundary cases, yielding consistent F1 improvements of 0.50-1.46 points across three datasets while maintaining an inference time of only 1.49x that of the baseline paradigm. These findings show that task decomposition and candidate scope are critical to effectively utilizing LLMs for ECPEC.

Deciding whether a trajectory actually fulfills its instruction governs how we measure computer-use agents on long-horizon graphical-user-interface tasks and how we train them with reinforcement learning. This judgment has long relied on rule-based evaluation, which struggles to align with human intention and goes stale when an app updates or its online content drifts. Existing model-based judges attempt to address these problems but still leave a performance gap to the rule-based evaluation. We propose the \textbf{SeekJudge} framework, in which four role-specialized agents, a Condense, a Ground, a Seek and an Analyze agent, reach a verdict through a Seek--Analyze loop over the trajectory. A seed-calibrated distillation pipeline trains one specialized $9$B model to serve as the shared backbone for all four agents. Measured by downstream success rate on held-out RL test goals, SeekJudge is the first practical model-based reward to match or surpass native rule-based supervision in online RL. Beyond accuracy, SeekJudge provides step-level judgments, runs far cheaper than a closed-source large model, and keeps a small per-call context that scales to much longer trajectories. We further contribute a general architectural improvement to the reward server that speeds up judging in RL. Together these make model-based reward a practical drop-in for rule-based supervision in CUA reinforcement learning.

Question-order effects in human survey data have been reported to approximately satisfy the QQ (quantum question) equality, a parameter-free prediction of the standard projective quantum question-order model. We develop this equality into an audit framework for sequential binary judgments of autoregressive large language models (LLMs). Theoretically, we characterize mechanism families that satisfy QQ robustly, show that classical repetition can reproduce the equality exactly, and combine QQ with the rank-2 Contextuality-by-Default criterion through $|q_{QQ}| \le \mathrm{OSS}$. This separates order sensitivity, QQ imbalance, and residual contextuality rather than treating them as interchangeable signatures. Methodologically, we introduce a committed multi-turn forced-branch protocol that reconstructs order-conditioned joint distributions from next-token log-probabilities under counterbalanced label mappings and pre-specified health gates. A first-signal pilot on an open-weight instruction-tuned model reveals the central measurement problem. Although all pre-specified health gates passed, the binary-conditioned distributions were near-deterministic for 17 of 18 item pairs under the direct-evaluation framing and 7 of 8 under the persona framing. Label assignment materially changed several mapping-specific QQ verdicts, and no item was certified as residually contextual. Thus, under the tested conditions, the observed QQ outcomes did not uniquely identify a response mechanism in the presence of a saturated and label-sensitive measurement interface. The main implication is methodological: next-token probabilities should not be interpreted as survey-response distributions without first establishing adequate dispersion. We therefore argue that saturation screening and label counterbalancing should precede structural interpretation in distribution-level audits of LLM judgments.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at answering pre-specified questions, yet their ability to navigate the open-ended, pre-conclusion stage of discovery remains largely unmeasured. We introduce Prospective Hypothesis Discovery (PHD), which asks models to autonomously construct grounded, discriminative, and testable hypothesis spaces from inconclusive evidence, including anomalous observations and fragmented records, to guide subsequent investigation. To evaluate this capability, we introduce HypoArena, comprising HypoData, a benchmark of 988 cases across six scientific and analytical domains, and HypoEval, an evaluation framework for open-ended hypothesis sets. To construct HypoData at scale, we propose Retrospective Context Regression, a Forge--Audit pipeline that reconstructs pre-conclusion contexts from completed expert documents by removing explicit conclusions, target hypotheses, and retrospective causal attributions while preserving the factual substrate. Because PHD admits multiple valid outputs, HypoEval combines bidirectional pairwise judgments with Bradley--Terry--Davidson aggregation for ranking and six-dimensional rubric scoring for diagnosis. Experiments on 15 frontier LLMs reveal clear capability stratification and model-dependent effects of structured analytical skills, with gains for several lower-performing models on HypoArena but regressions for other systems, including a top-performing model. Compared with absolute rubric scoring, arena evaluation resolves finer-grained differences among models, with aggregated rankings showing strong agreement with human experts and an independent judge. Together, these results support treating PHD as a distinct target for evaluating how LLMs formulate investigative directions when final conclusions are withheld. Our code and data are publicly available at github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HypoArena and github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HypoArena.

Online firestorms are rapid collective escalations of highly negative user-generated content and may cause substantial reputational and economic damage. Existing detectors usually work with volume signals, sentiment scores, or predefined linguistic features. Such signals are useful, but they capture contextual meaning shifts in evolving discussion threads only indirectly. This paper proposes an LLM-based detection system with two operating modes. The first mode classifies complete Reddit threads retrospectively by combining local chunk-level assessments into a thread-level judgment. The second mode processes threads sequentially and issues early warnings when a sliding window exceeds calibrated thresholds. In this mode, the language model estimates three firestorm indicators: negativity share, escalation level, and contributor count. On a balanced Reddit dataset, the global mode achieves strong classification performance, while the early warning mode reaches high recall and detects escalating threads after only a small number of comments and distinct contributors. The results indicate that LLMs can be used not only for static judgment tasks, but also as repeated estimators in context-aware monitoring of social media discourse.

Local pairwise comparisons are a standard tool for learning how people want decision rules to work, e.g., in participatory design or alignment. However, their use builds in two strong assumptions: that local comparisons are sufficient evidence about how a person wants an automated decision rule to behave, and that people can always answer those comparisons decisively. We investigate how these assumptions may be compromised under internal pluralism: the idea that an individual evaluates decision rules according to multiple authoritative priorities about how the rule should behave. We provide a formal model of such pluralistic preferences over decision rules, which then lets us identify two distinct failures of forced local pairwise comparison data. First, priorities such as proportionality, egalitarianism, and equal treatment are inherently global: what they imply in one case can depend on what happens elsewhere, so local comparisons may fail to capture them. Second, even when priorities are representable locally, tension between strongly-held priorities can generate internal conflict, producing potentially costly behavioral distortions when comparisons are forced. We then use our model to investigate the alternative -- allowing people to report indecision -- and our findings suggest that doing so can considerably reduce the number of queries needed to learn preferences accurately. We conclude by describing how our model points toward preference-learning methods that elicit these priorities directly, yielding more faithful and interpretable accounts of what people value.

From housing allocation for households experiencing homelessness to triage in emergency departments, LLMs are increasingly being considered as judges of consequential decisions that require ranking people for scarce resources. Ranking large groups simultaneously is cognitively demanding and error-prone. A natural solution, drawing on decades of social choice theory, elicits pairwise comparisons and aggregates them into a total order. However, a fundamental question remains when LLMs serve as the pairwise judge: how can a practitioner tell, before committing to a ranking, whether the LLM's judgments are sufficiently consistent to trust the result? We discuss two different ways of identifying consistency. A classical diagnostic, the coefficient of consistency $ζ$, originally developed to measure judge reliability by counting circular triads in tournament graphs, provides a cheap, model-free measure of intra-run consistency. Various standard measures of distance between rankings, for example Kendall's $τ$, can measure inter-run variability. We show, in both theory and practice, that these measures are independently valuable, and advocate for using both to assess reliability of rankings. We demonstrate the practical importance of our results across two high-stakes prioritization tasks: homelessness service allocation and emergency department triage. Three different leading LLMs have considerably different performance profiles across these two axes of consistency. We provide guidelines for how practitioners could think about measuring and assessing consistency before committing to a model for ranking or prioritization.

Large language models (LLMs) are now widely used as automatic judges for open-ended instruction-following evaluation. This practice is convenient, scalable, and often more semantically aware than reference-based metrics, but it also introduces a new reliability question: does a judge evaluate the quality of an answer, or does it also react to the language in which the comparison is presented? We propose Judge-LS, a lightweight meta-evaluation protocol that transforms LLMBar response-pair items into English, Chinese, and Chinese-English language-switched variants. A reliable judge should preserve its preference under label-preserving language transformations and should not prefer a language when two answers are translation-equivalent. We evaluate four API-accessible judges on the full 419-item LLMBar benchmark, producing 13,408 successful pairwise judgments. Across models, Chinese and language-switched presentations induce 10.7--14.4% preference flips relative to English, and all judges achieve their highest accuracy in English. However, translation-equivalent tie probes do not reveal a systematic English preference: most probes are judged as ties, and non-tie decisions more often favor Chinese. We add confidence intervals, paired significance tests, and an automatic transformation audit with a sensitivity analysis that excludes mechanically flagged high-risk variants. The experiment requires no model training, uses only API calls, and is feasible on modest local hardware.

Multilingual LLM-as-a-judge is widely used to evaluate model outputs across languages, but suffers from cross-lingual inconsistency (Fu and Liu, 2025). Existing methods typically treat this inconsistency as noise and mitigate it through voting or aggregation. In this work, we instead show that multilingual inconsistency can provide complementary evaluation signals. Our oracle analysis finds that sampling judgments across languages yields a higher performance upper bound than single-language judging, indicating that different languages potentially include complementary judgments. Motivated by this finding, we propose SEMJ, a self-evolving multilingual judge that leverages cross-lingual inconsistency for iterative refinement. SEMJ constructs multilingual variants of each input, collects independent judgments and rationales, and feeds inconsistent outputs back for self-reflection and re-evaluation. Experiments on multiple benchmarks show that SEMJ consistently outperforms voting and reflection baselines in both accuracy and cross-lingual consistency. Further analysis shows that inconsistency triggers useful re-evaluation, which improves judgment quality.

Text-to-SQL on complex schemas is unreliable on a single pass, so recent systems generate multiple SQL candidates and let voting filter out errors. Yet voting alone is not enough, because the multi-candidate recipe has three coupled weaknesses: 1) sampling more from a single generator produces increasingly redundant candidates, 2) existing pipelines apply one generic correction to every non-clean execution result, while runtime errors, timeouts, and empty results each indicate a different distance from correctness, and 3) existing selectors rely on a single angle such as result-majority voting or pairwise SQL comparison, missing what other angles would have caught. We present SIRIUS-SQL, which addresses all three weaknesses. A difficulty-smoothing RL recipe trains SIRIUS-32B to generate diverse executable SQL candidates, paired with a generalist LLM that fills in gaps left by the specialist. An execution-grounded lifecycle classifies each outcome and applies targeted repair before candidates re-enter the pool. A confidence-gated hybrid selector combines execution-result agreement with pairwise SQL-form judgment, escalating only near-tied cases to a deterministic structural check. SIRIUS-SQL reaches 75.88% on BIRD dev and 91.20% on SPIDER test. Two of three generalist pairings surpass Agentar-Scale-SQL, the strongest published multi-candidate system on BIRD dev.

Two methodologies dominate current practices of benchmarking: rubric-based scoring evaluates items against predefined criteria, whereas comparative judgment elicits pairwise preferences between outputs. Although both methodologies are widely used, the choice between them is rarely justified. We release JudgmentBench, a benchmark of 30 real-world legal tasks, paired with 1,539 rubric scores and 1,530 pairwise preference judgments collected from practicing attorneys--including at major U.S. law firms--with substantial experience. The annotations constitute the first publicly available dataset in a high-expertise domain in which both supervision signals are elicited from the same experts on the same items. Using LLM-generated outputs at three constructed quality levels, we provide an initial empirical comparison: comparative judgments recover the intended quality ordering substantially better than rubrics under both a per-task rank-correlation metric (mean Spearman's rank correlation of 0.908 vs. 0.150, estimated difference = 0.758 [0.494, 1.021]) and a per-judgment pairwise win-rate metric (0.669 vs. 0.542, estimated difference = 0.127 [0.067, 0.186]), while requiring less than half the annotation time. The patterns hold for human annotators and LLM autograders. Beyond this initial comparison, the paired structure of the dataset supports a broader research agenda on how expert judgment should be elicited, aggregated, and used as supervision in domains without verifiable ground truth.

Judgment aggregation studies how to combine individual judgments on logically related propositions into a collective judgment. Classical impossibility results show that sufficiently strong logical interconnections force dictatorship under natural aggregation axioms. In this paper, we ask whether such impossibility can still arise when the objects of aggregation are required to be genuinely modal judgments rather than plain factual propositions. Since modal logic contains propositional logic, this question is meaningful only if one excludes fact-based aggregation in disguise. We show that Arrow-type impossibility already re-emerges in a strikingly sparse modal setting. We prove an impossibility theorem on a simple cyclic frame for an agenda generated from a single propositional variable by repeated applications of a single modal operator, and we further demonstrate this phenomenon for an alternative family of frames satisfying a natural symmetry condition. Thus, even under a modal-operator requirement, semantic structure alone can generate the logical interconnections needed for dictatorship. Technically, our analysis has two layers. First, we prove a semantic reduction theorem showing that certain iterated modal patterns can be collapsed by shifting the evaluation point. Second, building on this reduction, we identify a local-to-global frame mechanism by which frame geometry yields minimally inconsistent modal judgment sets and the strong path-connectivity required for impossibility. The same reduction also turns consistency checking into a small combinatorial covering problem, which yields efficient implementations of non-dictatorial aggregation procedures.

Pairwise human preference prediction is central to evaluating code-generation systems, where quality often depends on task-specific trade-offs beyond functional correctness. While rubric-based LLM judges improve interpretability by decomposing evaluation into explicit criteria, most existing pipelines remain pointwise: they score each response independently and derive preferences by comparing aggregated scores. We show that this design is poorly matched to pairwise code preference prediction and can underperform a strong monolithic judge. We propose CriterAlign, a criterion-centric framework that adapts rubric-based judging to pairwise preference evaluation through direct criterion-level pairwise judgments, tie-driven criterion refinement, swap-consistency filtering, and final pairwise synthesis. We further introduce Human-Preference-Aligned Guidance (HPAG), synthesized offline from training examples by extracting recurring rationale gaps between human preferences and monolithic judge predictions, and injected into the criterion generator, criterion judge, and final judge. On BigCodeReward, CriterAlign improves a Qwen2.5-VL-32B monolithic judge from 60.4% to 66.3% accuracy, with ablations confirming the contributions of pairwise criterion design and HPAG.

Human-in-the-loop Bayesian optimization (HITL BO) methods utilize human expertise to improve the sample-efficiency of BO. Most HITL BO methods assume that a domain expert can quantify their knowledge, for instance by pinpointing query locations or specifying their prior beliefs about the location of the maximum as a probability distribution. However, since human expertise is often tacit and cannot be explicitly quantified, we consider a setting where domain knowledge of an expert is elicited via pairwise comparisons of designs. We interpret the expert's pairwise judgements as noisy evidence about the values of the observable objective function and develop a principled method for combining the information obtained via direct observations and pairwise queries. Specifically, we derive a cost-aware value-of-information acquisition function that balances direct observations against pairwise queries. The proposed method approaches the convex hull of the trajectories of the individual information sources: when pairwise queries are cheap it substantially improves sample-efficiency over observation-only BO, and when pairwise queries are costly or noisy, it recovers the performance of standard BO by relying on direct observations alone.

Code generation is typically trained in the primal space of programs: a model produces a candidate solution and receives sparse execution feedback, often a single pass/fail bit. Test-time scaling enriches the inference procedure by sampling multiple candidates and judging among them, but the comparative information this process reveals is discarded after inference. We argue that this information defines a dual judgment space that provides a far richer training signal: the model learns not from an isolated success or failure, but from the relative correctness structure across its own plausible attempts, identifying which succeed, which fail, and what distinguishes them. We introduce DuST (Dual Self-Training), a framework for self-training from the dual judgment space. DuST samples candidate programs from the model's own distribution, labels them through sandbox execution, retains groups containing both successes and failures, and trains the model to rank candidates by execution correctness using GRPO. The objective is purely discriminative: the model is never directly rewarded for generating correct programs. Dual self-training improves both judgment and generation. Across five models spanning two families and three scales (4B to 30B), DuST consistently improves Best-of-4 test-time scaling on LiveCodeBench. For Qwen3-30B-Thinking on LiveCodeBench v6, judgment quality improves by +6.2 NDCG, single-sample pass@1 improves by +3.1, and Best-of-4 accuracy improves by +4.1. The trained model's single rollout matches the base model's Best-of-4 performance. SFT on the same ranking data improves judgment without improving generation, confirming that on-policy RL is the mechanism that transfers dual-space learning back into primal generation.

Organizations increasingly deploy multiple AI systems across task domains, but selecting a small, high-performing ensemble can require costly model calls, benchmark runs, and human evaluation. We study this selection problem as a distributional variant of multiwinner voting: tasks are drawn from an unknown domain distribution, each task induces feedback over candidate experts, and a committee's value on a task is determined by its best-performing member. We analyze both binary feedback, for tasks with correct/incorrect outcomes, and pairwise feedback, for tasks where candidate outputs are compared by preference. In the binary setting, the induced objective is coverage. We give exhaustive-elicitation baselines and matching worst-case query lower bounds, and we design a failure-conditioned greedy algorithm that preserves the standard $(1-1/e)$ guarantee while obtaining instance-dependent query savings. In the pairwise setting, we study $θ$-winning committees. We show that full-information optimization admits a PTAS but no EPTAS under Gap-ETH, and that the objective is monotone but not submodular. This motivates a weighted ordinal coverage relaxation, which is submodular and supports a failure-conditioned greedy oracle under pairwise feedback. We then convert this oracle back into $θ$-type guarantees through finite-family auditing or a minimax wrapper. We also provide small-scale LLM experiments illustrating the predicted query savings and the role of complementarity in committee selection.

Modern AI is opening the door to collective decision-making in which participants express their views as free-form text rather than voting on a fixed set of candidates. A natural idea is to embed these opinions in a vector space so that the substantial literature on facility location problems and fair clustering can be brought to bear. But standard text embeddings measure semantic similarity, whereas distances in facility location problems and fair clustering require what we call \textit{preferential similarity}: a participant's agreement with a piece of text should be inversely related to their distance from it. Off-the-shelf embeddings inherit a coarse preference signal through a correlation between semantic and preferential similarity, but fail to capture preferences when the correlation breaks. We formalize this as an invariance problem: text embedding models encode both a preference-relevant signal (stance and values) and semantic nuisance (style and wording), and the two are observationally correlated, so a geometry that relies on nuisance can appear preference-correct even when it is not. We show that synthetic training data designed to break this correlation provably shifts the optimal scorer away from nuisance-dominated cosine and significantly improves preference prediction across 11 online deliberation datasets.

Natural-language instance navigation becomes challenging when the initial user request does not uniquely specify the target instance. A practical agent should reduce the user's burden by actively asking only the information needed to distinguish the target from similar distractors, rather than requiring a detailed description upfront. Existing approaches often fall short of this goal: they may stop at the first plausible candidate before sufficiently exploring alternatives, or, even after collecting multiple candidates, ask about the target's attributes derived from individual candidates rather than questions selected to distinguish candidates in the pool. As a result, despite the dialogue, the agent may still fail to distinguish the target from distractors, leading to premature decisions and lengthy user responses. We propose Proactive Instance Navigation with Comparative Judgment (ProCompNav), a two-stage framework that first constructs a candidate pool and then identifies the target through comparative judgment. At each round, ProCompNav extracts an attribute-value pair that splits the current pool, asks a binary yes/no question, and prunes all inconsistent candidates at once. This reframes disambiguation from open-ended target description to pool-level discriminative questioning, where each question is chosen to narrow the candidate set. On CoIN-Bench, ProCompNav improves Success Rate over interactive baselines with the same minimal input and non-interactive baselines with detailed descriptions, while substantially reducing Response Length. ProCompNav also achieves state-of-the-art Success Rate on TextNav, suggesting that comparative judgment is broadly useful for instance-level navigation among similar distractors. Code is available at https://github.com/tree-jhk/procompnav.

Street-view perception models predict subjective attributes such as safety at scale, but remain correlational: they do not identify which localized visual changes would plausibly shift human judgement for a specific scene. We propose a lever-based interventional counterfactual framework that recasts scene-level explainability as a bounded search over structured counterfactual edits. Each lever specifies a semantic concept, spatial support, intervention direction, and constrained edit template. Candidate edits are generated through prompt-conditioned image editing and retained only if they satisfy validity checks for same-place preservation, locality, realism, and plausibility. In a pilot across 50 scenes from five cities, the framework reveals preliminary proxy-based directional patterns and a practical failure taxonomy under prompt-only editing, with Mobility Infrastructure and Physical Maintenance showing the largest auxiliary safety shifts. Human pairwise judgements remain the ground-truth endpoint for future validation.

Generative user interfaces (GenUIs) create new opportunities to adapt interfaces to individual users on demand. Yet personalization is difficult because it is not possible to provide settings for screens that have not yet been generated, making it necessary to learn preferences from users' feedback on generated interfaces. Such feedback is sparse, subjective, and often difficult to articulate. We study this problem through a new dataset in which 20 participants each judge the same 600 pairs of GenUIs. Their judgments differ substantially (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.25), and written rationales show that even when participants consider similar UI properties, such as color tone or hierarchy, they often make different choices and prioritize them differently. We develop a sample-efficient personalization method that uses a few pairwise judgments to weight prior users' preferences rather than relying on a fixed rubric of UI attributes. Our method outperforms a pretrained UI evaluator and a larger multimodal model offline. In an online study with 12 new users, participants preferred interfaces personalized by our method over all baselines, including shared guidelines and users' own written preferences.

To scale up collective decision-making, participatory democracy platforms such as Polis and Remesh enable online deliberation among thousands of participants. However, at this scale, participants cannot review every opinion submitted by others, producing highly sparse voting data that misrepresent patterns of consensus, conflict, and minority support. Platforms therefore increasingly rely on Preference Inference (PI) models to predict missing votes. Yet this automation is not neutral: inferred preferences can artificially amplify, suppress, or reorder existing patterns of support, ultimately reshaping how the outcomes of a deliberation are interpreted. More generally, we lack a systematic understanding of how existing PI methods affect the collective preference landscape. To address this gap, we benchmark several existing PI approaches in this context. Moving beyond conventional user-centric evaluations centered on the accuracy of individual predictions, we introduce a collective-centric evaluation framework that measures whether inferred votes preserve salient properties of the broader preference landscape. We further contribute the largest multilingual dataset of its kind: four consultations spanning over 90k participants, 1M votes, and 22 languages. Our experiments show that models with comparable predictive accuracy can differ substantially in the degree to which they preserve the collective structure. These results demonstrate that accuracy alone is insufficient for evaluating PI in democratic settings. By contributing a novel comprehensive and collective-centric evaluation benchmark for the task of PI, this work aims to support the development of AI systems that scale deliberation without compromising the integrity of its democratic outcomes.

Educational data filters have become a practical way to improve language-model pre-training, but most filters treat educational value as a single scalar property. This may be too broad for some applications, especially if the data set already features a high density of educational material. Useful learning material needs to be accurate, engaging, well structured, and appropriate for the intended audience and application (e.g. learner- vs teacher-facing). Following QuRating (Wettig et al. 2024), we introduce Edu-QuRating: a pipeline for multi-dimensional educational data scoring and curation. Edu-QuRating defines education-specific rubrics, uses an LLM judge to label sampled document pairs and distills those pairwise preferences into reusable Edu-QuRaters, which can score individual text chunks on a set of educational criteria. Across two sequence-classification base models and six educational criteria, the best Edu-QuRater recovers held-out GPT-4.1-mini pairwise judgements with mean accuracy 0.917. We then apply the resulting scorers in two applications. First, we investigate the potential of Edu-QuRaters for corpus filtering to improve pretraining of small language models. We scored 322.25M FineWeb-Edu-Fortified documents to obtain a filtered pre-training mixture. In matched single-run pre-training comparisons, models trained with Edu-QuRating-based mixtures reached higher observed aggregate accuracy across nine benchmarks than the FineWeb-Edu baseline, with gains concentrated in particular tasks. Second, we used Edu-QuRater scores as reward terms for GRPO post-training. In held-out pairwise judge evaluations, combining Edu-QuRater and answer-structure rewards produced responses preferred to the Qwen3-4B base model on both pedagogical quality and instruction following.