Pairwise Preference Evaluation

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

2 papers in the last four weeks, against 2 the four weeks before. 0.0% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 70

Sep 29, 2026cs.CL

Pair Difficulty Matters: Rethinking Pairwise LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation and Consistency

Large Language Model judges are widely used to rank texts and text-generating systems through pairwise comparison, and their reliability is typically assessed via three proxies: position bias, transitivity, and pairwise agreement (self- or human-labeled). Because these proxies drive judge selection and benchmarking, a substantial literature reporting that judges perform poorly on them risks steering practitioners away from otherwise capable evaluators. We argue this assessment is misleading. Under the Bradley--Terry geometry underlying pairwise aggregation, each proxy is dominated by close-rank-gap pairs, where inconsistency is information-theoretically expected and individual verdicts contribute little to the aggregate ranking; far-gap pairs carry the ranking signal but barely move the proxies. We formalize this argument and validate it in a controlled simulation and on two human-rated corpora: the proxies correlate only weakly with ranking accuracy against gold, and their predictive component concentrates in the far-gap regime. Judges should therefore be assessed on rank-gap-conditional metrics, ideally against human rankings. Code at https://github.com/brunobrocai/PairDifficulty.

Bruno Brocai, Maria Becker

Heidelberg University German Department

LLM-as-a-Judge Pairwise Preference Evaluation LLM Reliability

Sep 15, 2026cs.CL

Who Judges Matters: Measuring Family-Conditioned Preference in LLM-as-Judge Panels

Who the judge is can affect an LLM-as-judge result, but measuring that effect without confusing it with candidate quality is difficult. We study four open-weight families (Llama 3.1, Qwen 2.5, Gemma 2, and Yi 1.5) in a fully crossed pairwise design with 9,312 judgments. A common per-family statistic is strongly confounded with candidate quality and correlates with Bradley-Terry ability at r = 0.95. We derive a corrected estimator that holds the candidate family fixed and compares judges. All four families then show a positive same-family lift (3.4-8.4 percentage points), with global FPS 0.067 (95% CI [0.053, 0.084], permutation p = 0.0002). The effect remains under panel-based quality controls, an independent human-consensus anchor, and a float16 judging replication. Judge-side likelihood is closely related to the effect: adding likelihood advantage reduces the controlled coefficient by 61%, which we treat as descriptive attenuation rather than causal mediation. Position is a separate failure mode. Across the panel, 55.4% of AB/BA pairs reverse, and reversal above 50% is incompatible with a simple independent content-noise model. Relative to a family-balanced reference, panel composition changes 18.5% of pairwise outcomes. A complete reproducibility archive has been prepared for public release.

David Ababio Awuni, Luke E. K. Achenie, Benjamin Tei Partey +2

LLM-as-a-Judge Pairwise Preference Evaluation Language Model Bias Evaluation Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge

Aug 12, 2026cs.AI

Graph-Structured Rubrics: Compiling Rubrics into Typed Evaluation Graphs for LLM Judges

Rubric-based evaluators commonly treat rubrics as prompt context or flat criteria: they specify what to judge but leave criterion composition implicit, even when natural-language rules state it. We introduce Graph-Structured Rubrics (GSR), which compiles a rubric into a response-independent typed evaluation graph before observing responses. Criterion nodes elicit judgments; transformation, reduction, and gating operators compose them through named ports; and a task-specific output mapping, termed Readout, converts the unique sink into a score or preference. Compilation rejects malformed or type-incompatible graphs. Pointwise evaluation judges rubric dimensions separately before graph aggregation; pairwise evaluation reuses the graph with one judgment for each candidate under every criterion. Under GPT-OSS-120B, GSR improves exact score agreement by 0.62--6.75 percentage points over Prometheus-style scoring on four pointwise datasets and achieves the numerically highest end-to-end pairwise accuracy on two preference benchmarks under native tie and abstention policies.

Xi Chen, Jie Mu, Mo Xuan +1

Ant Group

Human Preference Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Pairwise Preference Evaluation Rubric-Based Evaluation

Aug 10, 2026cs.LG

Finding the Signal in the Spam: Jointly Learning Rewards and Worker Reliability from Pairwise Comparisons

The problem of learning from pairwise comparisons has been widely studied across many domains such as recommendation systems, social choice, and more recently, fine-tuning large language models. In this problem, the goal is to learn item rewards based on pairwise comparisons between them. In many scenarios, these comparisons are elicited from crowdworkers using platforms such as Amazon Mechanical Turk, Scale AI, etc. However, crowdworkers are often unreliable due to limited domain knowledge or revenue-maximizing (spamming) behavior. In this work, our goal is to understand whether worker reliability (competency) can be learned jointly with item rewards. To this end, we adopt the Boltzmann-rational model for pairwise comparisons, which extends the Bradley-Terry-Luce model by incorporating worker competencies. We derive an EM-based algorithm for learning under this model by introducing Polya-Gamma latent variables to transform the logistic likelihood into a conditionally Gaussian form, enabling tractable optimization and leading to a simplified

Q

function in the E-step of the algorithm. This technique allows us to reduce our formulation to a matrix sensing problem, using which we establish theoretical convergence guarantees for our algorithm. We conduct extensive experiments on real-world and synthetic datasets. These experiments demonstrate the advantages of using our algorithm over several baselines and confirm its strong robustness to both spammers and adversarial workers, highlighting its practical effectiveness in realistic crowdsourcing and reward learning settings. The code and data is publicly available at https://github.com/KaustubhShejole/BoRa_EM.

Kaustubh Shivshankar Shejole, Tanish Agarwal, Arpit Agarwal +1

IIT Bombay, Mumbai, India – 400076

Pairwise Preference Learning Reward Modeling Inter-Rater Reliability Pairwise Preference Evaluation Learning with Noisy Labels

Aug 9, 2026cs.AI

TrustRoboReward: Preference-Ordered Isotonic Score Editing for Multi-Paradigm Robot Reward Models

Reward models are a bottleneck for reinforcement learning in embodied AI. Long-horizon robotic manipulation requires scalable vision feedback beyond handcrafted rewards or task-specific annotations. Existing open-source VLM reward judges like RoboReward adopt simple 1--5 trajectory progress scoring, lacking pairwise preferences for RLHF, DPO and Bradley-Terry frameworks, while failing to optimize video scene understanding. Augmenting RoboReward with pairwise comparison and video-QA supervision causes inconsistency between pairwise preferences and pointwise scores, introducing training noise and hurting downstream performance---an issue aggregation methods such as TrustJudge cannot resolve. To address this, we propose TrustRoboReward, a multi-paradigm reward modeling framework equipped with Preference-Ordered Isotonic Score Editing (POISE). We construct a unified four-paradigm dataset with trajectory progress scoring (Score-A), video-QA answer quality scoring (Score-B), and their pairwise counterparts (Pair-A, Pair-B). Pairwise labels align better with human judgment than pointwise scores, inspiring us to calibrate pointwise scores to avoid score-pair reversals against pairwise preferences. POISE rectifies pointwise scores and eliminates cross-paradigm reversal conflicts unresolved by TrustJudge. Theoretically, POISE reduces score-pair reversal conflicts from 20.15% to 0%, whereas TrustJudge retains 20.46% conflicts on the same corpus. Evaluated on our benchmark, Qwen3-VL-4B trained with POISE achieves an overall reward score of 77.96%, nearly matching GPT-5-mini (78.09%, gap 0.13%) and outperforming the strongest RoboReward-4B baseline by 10.13%. It also lifts test-time score-pair consistency to 71.90%, exceeding RoboReward-4B (57.26%) and GPT-5-mini (68.09%). Integrating TrustJudge aggregation during inference boosts the overall score to 78.57%, surpassing the GPT-5-mini teacher model.

Yidong Wang, Yan Zhan, Ziteng Feng +16

Peking University · University of Science and Technology of China · Southeast University +6

Reward Modeling Pairwise Preference Evaluation Multimodal Reward Modeling Isotonic Regression

Aug 7, 2026cs.CL

Can Language Models Imagine Without Seeing? Ekphrasis: Measuring Visual Creative Ideation in Text-Only LLMs

Current evaluations do not isolate whether text-only language models can originate visual concepts before image generation. Fluent visual prose can hide visual-plan failures: an answer may appear creative while repeating familiar visual clichés or failing to specify a renderable scene. We define Visual Creative Ideation (VCI) as the ability to produce textual visual plans that are useful, expressive, and population-novel, and introduce Ekphrasis, a 400-task benchmark spanning Abstraction, Combination, Transformation, and Adaptation. Ekphrasis scores anonymized pairwise comparisons with dimension-specific checklists, aggregates preferences with Bradley-Terry models, and uses Typed Idea Graphs to convert task-specific population clichés into novelty references. Across 14 language models, VCI separates usefulness, expressiveness, and novelty rather than reducing to fluency: strong models achieve similar overall scores through different profiles, and useful plans can remain visually clichéd. A cross-modal grounding study further shows that text-level VCI ordering largely survives faithful rendering and blind image-level preference judgment, supporting Ekphrasis as a measure of visual ideation beyond prose quality.

Hongyu Luo, He Wang, Huihao Jing +6

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong SAR, China

Creativity Assessment LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Pairwise Preference Evaluation Text Generation

Aug 6, 2026cs.AI

Stability of Ranking-dependent Pair-wise Comparison Patterns in the Analytic Hierarchy Process

The paper addresses several ranking-dependent decision support methods. Ordinal information on compared objects can be used to improve the quality of expert data during estimation and help reduce the number of comparisons that the experts need to perform. In the paper we compare three incomplete ranking-dependent pair-wise comparison patterns which can be used in the Analytic Hierarchy Process - Best-worst method, Best-Second Best (Top 2) method, and the original maximum difference method. The first two comparison patterns (and respective methods) are incomplete, while the third can be a complete one. We determine conditions under which these three methods can be compared in terms of stability to expert errors. We also present the results of a simulation-type experiment, in which the three methods are compared. The research allows us to define the most stable incomplete ranking-dependent pair-wise comparison pattern and reduce the number of comparisons without loss of credibility of expert session results. The research contributes to algorithmic, cognitive, and applied aspects of decision support in uncertain environments.

Vitaliy Tsyganok, Sergii Kadenko, Oleh Andriichuk

Institute for Information Recording National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine Kyiv, Ukraine 03113

Pairwise Comparison Pairwise Preference Evaluation Algorithmic Stability Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Aug 5, 2026cs.CL

Evidence Lock Before Commitment: A Frozen Interface Degrades LLM-as-Judge Evaluation

LLM judges are often asked to extract criteria and evidence before choosing between candidate answers. This workflow assumes that the intermediate record preserves the information needed for a later verdict. For reasoning-capable models, visible field order does not reveal internal decision order, so we test an observable alternative: persist the evidence in one call and make it the exclusive input to the next. Across 24,000 judgments over HelpSteer3, FeedbackQA, and CoVal, we compare standard pairwise judging, structured one-call judging, two-call evidence locking, and three-call pointwise locking with Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT-5. Evidence locking reduces agreement with released human preferences by 4 to 6 percentage points and increases answer-order inconsistency by 8 to 10 points relative to structured one-call judging. Pointwise locking is also harmful, while structured evidence elicitation remains close to standard judging. The result holds for both judges and all three datasets. Persisted evidence can support auditability, but it should not replace the source answers at decision time.

Divyansh Singh

University of Florida

Human Preference Evaluation LLM Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Pairwise Preference Evaluation

Aug 3, 2026cs.LG

Isotonic Bradley-Terry Model for Paired Comparison Data

In this paper, we study prediction problems for paired comparison data, for example, predicting the win probability between two unmatched players and ranking all the players according to the order of their strengths by using win probability data between two matched players. Paired comparison data are typically analyzed using Bradley-Terry and Thurstone-Mosteller models. These models predict the win probability by transforming the difference between learned rate parameters, which represent players';strengths, with a pre-specified inverse link function, and employ the order of learned rate parameters for player ranking. However, these models may suffer from model misspecification owing to the selection of a fixed inverse link function. Therefore, in this study, we propose to learn the rate parameters by a (sub-)gradient method and the inverse link function by an isotonic regression technique alternately. The proposed model guarantees monotonic improvement in training error, and is likely to yield an exact tie when the available data is insufficient to establish a strict ranking. We also verified that the proposed model could improve the win probability prediction and ranking performance through numerical experiments with synthetic data and real-world data of football Premier League, baseball MLB, and tennis ATP tour.

Ryoya Yamasaki

Hitotsubashi Institute for Advanced Study, Hitotsubashi University, 2-1 Naka, Kunitachi, 186-8601, Tokyo, Japan.

Pairwise Preference Learning Pairwise Comparison Pairwise Preference Evaluation Pairwise Ranking Bradley–Terry Model Isotonic Regression

Jul 30, 2026cs.LG

AutoPref: Automatic Discovery of Task-Specific Preference Objectives for Neural Combinatorial Optimization

Combinatorial optimization problems (COPs) underpin many real-world decisions, but their exponentially large search spaces make high-quality solutions costly to obtain. Neural combinatorial optimization (NCO) learns fast construction policies, typically with reinforcement learning (RL), while preference-based NCO improves sample efficiency by learning from relative solution quality. However, existing preference objectives combine two distinct design choices in manually specified, one-size-fits-all formulations: what learning signal to extract from each solution pair and how to weight each pair relative to the sampled set. We present AutoPref, the first LLM-guided framework for automated preference-objective discovery in NCO. AutoPref factorizes the objective into a pairwise loss program, which defines the learning signal, and a set-aware weighting program, which determines each pair's relative contribution. Their composition forms a unified programmatic objective space containing existing preference objectives as special cases. To make its search tractable, we introduce a staged conditional search strategy with behavioral gates that filter inadmissible programs before short-horizon training and evaluation. Across TSP, CVRP, FFSP, and JSSP, AutoPref consistently outperforms strong hand-designed baselines across problem scales, demonstrating the benefits and scalability of automated objective discovery for NCO.

Shengda Gu, Kai Li, Xinyi Ke +3

C2DL, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Tencent AI Lab +1

Automated Algorithm Discovery Pairwise Preference Evaluation Preference Optimization Neural Combinatorial Optimization Preference-Based RL

Jul 27, 2026cs.LG

What do Reward Models Memorize?

This paper studies what discriminatively trained reward models (RMs) memorize by measuring counterfactual memorization on two human preference datasets. We show that RMs 1) misallocate memorization to easy, high margin preference pairs, 2) memorize dataset-specific shortcuts (e.g., model identity, user sampling strategy), and 3) overgeneralize simple heuristic correlates of human preference (e.g., length, compliance) when confronted with unseen preference pairs. Overall, our findings indicate that discriminative training of RMs from human preference data results in biased RMs not yet capable of judging response quality in context-dependent scenarios.

Ivo Verhoeven, Pushkar Mishra, Ekaterina Shutova

ILLC, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands · Google DeepMind, London, United Kingdom

Reward Modeling Pairwise Preference Evaluation Human Preference Modeling Shortcut Learning

Jul 23, 2026cs.CL

CSPF: A Constrained Shared-Private Fusion Method for Non-Verifiable Preference Evaluation

At present, reliable evaluation of non-verifiable tasks remains challenging. Existing approaches often fail to adequately capture the diverse evaluative criteria underlying human preferences in such tasks. To this end, we propose Constrained Shared-Private Fusion (CSPF), a fusion method that treats heterogeneous frozen reward models as complementary evaluators and learns to integrate their hidden-state representations under pairwise human-preference supervision. CSPF decomposes each expert signal into shared and expert-private representations, encouraging cross-expert alignment while preserving complementary viewpoints. Across experiments on LM-Arena target-domain adaptation and PPE out-of-distribution preference evaluation, CSPF achieves the best performance on the primary metrics among the evaluated single-expert reward-model, scalar-score multi-expert, and rubric-judge baselines. Overall, CSPF suggests that fusing hidden-state representations provides a more expressive basis for preference assessment, offering a practical route toward integrated evaluative signals for non-verifiable preference tasks.

Hehao Zhang, Danli Wang, Xinyuan Wang +1

Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

Pairwise Preference Learning Reward Modeling Pairwise Preference Evaluation

Jul 20, 2026cs.CV

Style over Substance: A Shortcut Audit of Emotion-Description Preference Evaluation

Preference over model-generated emotion descriptions is emerging as a standard evaluation metric for multimodal emotion understanding, exemplified by the MER2026 MER-Prefer track on EmoPrefer. Such benchmarks assume that predicting the preferred description requires grounded cross-modal understanding of the video. We conduct a systematic shortcut audit of EmoPrefer using content-blind probes. A simple logistic regression using only description length and generator identity, without processing the text, video, or audio, performs comparably to LoRA-finetuned 7B text and audio-visual judges (65.8 versus 66.8 WAF on EmoPrefer-V2). Generator identity is recoverable from description text with 99.5 percent accuracy, every candidate pair contrasts two distinct generators, and the human preference labels agree with a fold-exclusive per-generator win-rate prior on 66 percent of the evaluated pairs. When the human label conflicts with this prior, trained judges still follow the style prior on 63 to 80 percent of the pairs. On a length-matched subset that neutralizes verbosity bias, the tested media configurations yield no statistically significant improvement, while an ODIN-inspired diagnostic that decouples the style shortcut leaves its content head near chance. These results do not imply that human preferences are inherently stylistic or that the descriptions contain no emotional information. Instead, they show that the current scores can be reached without verifying either description against the video. We recommend source-balanced pairing, strict length control, counter-stereotypical sliced reporting, and multi-annotator consensus for future cross-generator evaluations. Code is available at https://github.com/jiabingyang01/EmoPrefer-Audit.

Jiabing Yang, Yixiang Chen, Yuan Xu +6

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences Beijing, China

Human Preference Evaluation Pairwise Preference Evaluation Multimodal Emotion Recognition Shortcut Learning Multimodal Model Evaluation

Jul 15, 2026cs.AI

Reward-Free Evolving Agents via Pairwise Validator

A self-evolving agentic loop repeatedly proposes a tweaked version of an agent (its prompt template or program) and accepts or rejects the change based on a per-iteration quality signal. Designing that signal is often the costly part of the project: a reliable scalar reward requires domain expertise and labeled examples that are themselves as expensive to assemble as the agent's underlying task. We propose replacing the scalar at the accept/reject gate with a pairwise validator: a frozen LLM that, given the parent and child candidate, returns a binary verdict on which is better. Pairwise judgment is generally easier and more stable than absolute scoring, due to its contrastive nature, which mitigates the need for strict scale calibration. The validator also requires no training of its own. We integrate the validator into three published self-evolving engines (GEPA, ADRS, ShinkaEvolve) and report two flavors: Adaptive Focus, which retains the engine's existing val-set parent selection, and Soft Elo, which lets the validator's verdicts drive parent selection so that val-set rewards drop as well. Across multiple agents and two artifact substrates (prompt and code), our method matches or exceeds the full-reward baseline on the majority of settings we evaluate, and the pattern survives a cross-family validator swap. The pairwise gate is thus a drop-in replacement for per-step reward design at competitive task accuracy without the labeling cost.

Minghao Liu, Yu Wang, Jiayun Wang +1

Accenture

Pairwise Preference Evaluation LLM Agent Self-Improvement Self-Evolving Agents

Jul 13, 2026cs.LG

Generalizing Preference-based Reinforcement Learning: a Rationality Model for Incomparability

In this work, we study the reinforcement learning (RL) problem from pairwise trajectory comparisons provided by a human expert. We generalize preference-based RL by formalizing a novel setting in which the expert can also label trajectory pairs as incomparable, i.e., when neither trajectory dominates the other. We introduce the learning problem and the desiderata that its solution should satisfy. Then, we propose a novel Bradley-Terry-inspired rationality model that effectively captures incomparabilities and infers a multi-dimensional reward function, and we study its properties. We provide a sample complexity analysis for learning the model parameters when a dataset is available. Finally, we evaluate our model's ability to reconstruct a reward function that aligns with the expert's comparisons in simulated environments and to recover the Pareto frontier of policies, along with a robustness analysis across varying levels of expert rationality.

Simone Drago, Marco Mussi, Leonardo Bianconi +1

Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

Pairwise Preference Learning Pairwise Comparison Pairwise Preference Evaluation Bradley–Terry Model Preference Learning Preference-Based RL

Jul 10, 2026stat.ME

Geometric mean-based pairwise comparison method with the reference values -- statistical approach

For many years, the pairwise comparison method has been widely used for decision-making involving experts. The best-known example of this method is the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). In this now classic approach, the weights of alternatives are calculated using the principal eigenvector of the comparison matrix. In this paper, we present a statistical view of the pairwise comparison method, using reference values and the geometric mean to calculate alternative priorities. Thanks to this approach, we can simultaneously capture both the phenomenon of inconsistency in pairwise comparisons and the preference distance between alternatives. In this paper, we define indicators that measure the quality of the obtained weight vector, which, thanks to the statistical approach, have a clear and intuitive interpretation.

Konrad Kułakowski, Jacek Szybowski

AGH University of Krakow, WEAiIB, al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Poland · AGH University of Krakow, WMS, al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Poland

Pairwise Comparison Pairwise Preference Evaluation Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Jul 9, 2026cs.LG

Optimal Top- $k$ Identification from Pairwise Comparisons

We study the active learning problem of fixed-confidence top-

k

identification from noisy pairwise comparisons. In this problem, an algorithm sequentially chooses pairs of items to compare, observes the outcomes, and stops when it can return the set of top-

k

items with error probability at most

δ

. The objective is to design such a

δ

-correct procedure that minimizes the expected number of comparisons (the sample complexity). This problem falls within the broader literature on fixed-confidence pure exploration in bandit models, where a common target is asymptotic optimality: the algorithm's expected sample complexity matches the information theoretic lower bound as

δ\to 0

. Asymptotically optimal procedures have been developed for a range of fixed-confidence pure-exploration problems, however to the best of our knowledge, for top-

1

, or more generally top-

k

identification from pairwise comparisons under latent utility models an asymptotically optimal algorithm has not been established. In this setting, we develop such an algorithm. We characterize the structure of the lower bound and formulate it as a saddle-point problem. This structure enables a computationally efficient primal-dual procedure that learns the asymptotically optimal comparison allocation online. We then construct an adaptive comparison-allocation algorithm that tracks the allocation learned by the primal-dual procedure and prove it is asymptotically optimal.

Motti Goldberger, Nils Rudi

Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.

Pairwise Preference Learning Multi-Armed Bandits Pairwise Comparison Pairwise Preference Evaluation Pairwise Ranking Best-Arm Identification

Jul 6, 2026cs.AI

Attention Limited Reward Learning

Pairwise human comparisons are a primary interface through which modern AI systems learn human preferences. RLHF and related alignment pipelines typically model such comparisons with Bradley--Terry log-odds, where choice probabilities are governed by latent reward differences. This paper examines what this assumption misses through a reduced-form model motivated by rational inattention, in which each label is generated by a low-capacity evaluation channel. The model separates two forms of ambiguity that standard reward modeling tends to conflate: a comparison may be difficult because the two candidates are genuinely close in value, or because the relevant distinction is hard to detect under limited attention. We show that limited attention can fundamentally distort what pairwise comparisons reveal. In particular, passive comparison data cannot generally distinguish reward, attention, and default tendencies, and heterogeneous attention can make standard Bradley--Terry reward modeling recover misleading rankings. Our analysis shows that learning is governed not by the raw number of labels, but by the amount of attended information each label carries. A case study on human votes over language-model pairs from Chatbot Arena exhibits the predicted signature, a cyclic component of the comparison data that exceeds sampling noise and that no scalar reward can represent; a second case study on perceptual comparisons shows that response times and gaze carry gap information that the labels do not. This perspective suggests that human feedback should be treated not as direct revealed preference, but as an attention-limited measurement process: a weak preference signal may reflect hidden evaluation difficulty rather than genuine indifference.

Wenqian Xing

Management Science and Engineering Department, Stanford University

Pairwise Preference Learning Reward Modeling Pairwise Comparison Pairwise Preference Evaluation Pairwise Ranking Bradley–Terry Model+1

Jul 2, 2026cs.AI

Internal Pluralism and the Limits of Pairwise Comparisons

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.

Bailey Flanigan, Michelle Si

MIT, USA · Harvard, USA

Pairwise Preference Learning Pairwise Comparison Pairwise Preference Evaluation Human Preference Modeling Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Pairwise Ranking+2

Jul 1, 2026cs.AI

LitReview Arena: Evaluating Literature Review Agents with Battle-Style Peer Review Platform

Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspects of research utility depend on expert judgment rather than reference-overlap metrics. We introduce LitReview Arena, a battle-style evaluation platform with a structured protocol tailored to literature review quality: domain experts with AI paper-writing experience compare anonymized drafts, are matched to topics within their expertise, and provide dimension-wise outcomes over five literature-review-specific criteria. From this protocol, we collect approximately 3k expert judgments, each containing five dimension-wise outcomes, and show that even the strongest current systems win only 23.0% of decisive matches against human drafts on overall utility, while agentic LLMs such as Sonar Deep Research substantially outperform base language models by over 60%. We further find that existing LLM-as-a-judge methods are substantially misaligned with human experts (Spearman's rho=0.467), especially on synthesis-heavy criteria such as paper structure and research suggestions. Using the collected preference data, we provide an expert-calibrated evaluator, LitJudge, which improves alignment to Spearman's rho=0.78, comparable to inter-expert consistency; code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/VanellopeAsher/LitReview-Arena.

Ruotong Zhao, Zhiyu Chen, Xurui Liu +7

Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Zhongguancun Academy, Beijing, China · Zhongguancun Institute of AI, Beijing, China +2

Human Preference Evaluation LLM-as-a-Judge Language Model Generation Evaluation Pairwise Preference Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks

Jun 30, 2026cs.LG

Calibrating the Evaluator: Does Probability Calibration Mitigate Preference Coupling in LLM Agent Feedback Loops?

When large language model (LLM) agents adapt their behavior through evaluator feedback, systematic evaluator biases propagate into the agent's learned strategy distribution - a phenomenon termed evaluator preference coupling. Prior work has documented this coupling and established a diagnostic framework (EPC) to measure it, but has not investigated whether calibration techniques can mitigate the effect. We present the first study of evaluator calibration as mitigation: applying probability calibration to the evaluator's pairwise judgments to reduce spurious preference propagation. In a controlled within-subjects experiment (N=5) comparing standard binary TTRL (win/loss) with confidence-calibrated TTRL (probability-weighted updates) using DeepSeek-V4-Pro as executor and GLM5.2 as evaluator, we find that calibration reduces the coupling coefficient gamma by 20-49% and Jensen-Shannon divergence by 45-67%. A symmetric-LR control confirms the effect is not due to reduced update asymmetry. We release the calibrated TTRL protocol and recommend it as a lightweight mitigation for LLM-as-judge deployment pipelines.

Zewen Liu

Qilu Institute of Technology, School of Software Engineering Tai’an, Shandong, China

LLM-as-a-Judge Pairwise Preference Evaluation LLM-Guided RL Language Model Calibration LLM Agent Training

Jun 29, 2026cs.CY

Can LLMs Rank? A Tale of Triads and Triage

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.

Gaurab Pokharel, Shafkat Farabi, Patrick J. Fowler +1

Virginia Tech Alexandria, VA · Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis, MO

Pairwise Comparison Social Choice Theory Pairwise Preference Evaluation Pairwise Ranking LLM Reliability LLM Decision-Making+1

Jun 26, 2026cs.LG

Democratic ICAI: Debating Our Way to Steering Principles from Preferences

Preference-based alignment often struggles to capture the reasoning that underlies human judgments. Many evaluations rely on multiple interacting criteria, yet pairwise labels reveal only the final choice rather than the considerations that shape preferences. Inverse Constitutional AI (ICAI) improves interpretability in decision making by summarizing preferences into natural-language principles, but its single-pass explanations miss much of the nuance involved in complex decisions. We introduce Democratic ICAI (DICAI), a novel approach that gathers multiple competing rationales through structured persona debate, offering a broader and more expressive account of the factors influencing each comparison. From these richer signals, we derive clearer and more comprehensive steering principles and use them to guide preference decision modeling through both LLM-based and decision-tree judges, as well as downstream model training via constitution-induced preference labels. Experiments on creative preference benchmarks, MuCE-Pref and LiTBench, across multiple creative task categories show that Democratic ICAI yields a more faithful preference structure. It improves average preference prediction across tasks relative to deliberative prompting and principle-based baselines, while producing constitutions that LLM annotators prefer.

Kevin Kingslin, Anish Natekar, Ashutosh Ranjan +3

TCS Research, India

Pairwise Preference Learning Pairwise Preference Evaluation Preference Alignment Preference Elicitation

Jun 23, 2026cs.SD

ParaPairAudioBench: Paralinguistic Pairwise Audio Benchmark for LALM-as-a-Judge

Large Audio-Language Models (LALMs) have been widely used as judge models for the automatic evaluation of generated speech. However, prior approaches predominantly focus on holistic naturalness, leaving fine-grained paralinguistic distinctions underexplored. We introduce ParaPairAudioBench, a pairwise benchmark of 5,175 audio pairs across five paralinguistic dimensions: Style, Rate, Emphasis, Age, and Gender. Our experiments show that current LALM judges still lag behind human judgments by 32%p on average and exhibit severe calibration failures, particularly in Tie cases where the correct decision is to abstain. To further analyze lexical versus acoustic reliance, the benchmark includes both same-transcript and cross-transcript conditions. ParaPairAudioBench enables multi-dimensional, calibration-aware assessment of the reliability of LALM-as-a-Judge for paralinguistic speech evaluation.

Jisu Jeon, Seungyeon Jwa, Joosung Lee +6

Hongik University, South Korea · Seoul National University, South Korea · NAVER Cloud, South Korea +1

Audio-Language Model Evaluation Pairwise Comparison Speech Generation Evaluation Pairwise Preference Evaluation Speech Quality Assessment Pairwise Ranking+1

Jun 21, 2026cs.LG

A Markov Chain Approach to Preference Alignment

We propose Markov Chain from Human Feedback (MCHF), an elementary approach for aligning generative models from pairwise human preferences. Unlike Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), which reduces comparisons to a scalar reward, and Nash Learning from Human Feedback (NLHF), which preserves pairwise utilities through a KL-regularized minimax optimization, MCHF uses pairwise preferences directly to define a transition mechanism over model outputs. Given a pairwise utility

U(x,y)

, which quantifies human preference for

y

over

x

, and a reference probability distribution

μ_{\mathsf{ref}}

, we define a Markov kernel

\mathsf{P}(x, dy)\propto \exp(U(x,y))μ_{\mathsf{ref}}(dy)

, and take the Markov chain starting from

μ_{\mathsf{ref}}

as an iterative alignment procedure. We show that MCHF converges geometrically fast to the stationary distribution, with a convergence rate governed by the seminorm

\|U\|_\oplus=\inf_{g,f\in L^\infty(μ_{\mathsf{ref}})}\|U-g\oplus f\|_\infty

, which quantifies the non-transitive structure of the pairwise utility. We further show that a mirror-descent algorithm for NLHF satisfies an analogous structure-adaptive convergence guarantee. Finally, through a perturbation analysis, we prove that when

\|U\|_\oplus

is small, MCHF and NLHF agree up to first order around an RLHF solution, which yields a unified view of reward-based, game-theoretic, and Markovian approaches to alignment. In particular, for two natural algorithms that converge to the MCHF/NLHF equilibria, we show that the first step of MCHF and NLHF recovers the RLHF solution based on the column-sum reward

\hat{f}(y)=\int μ_{\mathsf{ref}}(dx) U(x, y)

, and starting from the second iteration, both algorithms incorporate the same linear functional of the residual

U-(-\hat f)\oplus \hat f

, which captures the non-transitive structure of the pairwise utility

U

.

Takuya Koriyama, Tengyuan Liang

The University of Chicago

Pairwise Preference Learning Pairwise Comparison Pairwise Preference Evaluation Preference Alignment

Jun 17, 2026cs.AI

Which Pairs to Compare for LLM Post-Training?

Preference-based post-training has become a central paradigm for aligning language models. A common data-collection strategy is to generate a small set of completions for each prompt and label the resulting comparison pairs. However, human preference labels are often much more expensive than generating additional completions, suggesting a different use of the same labeling budget: generate a larger pool of completions, but label only the most informative comparison pairs. This paper studies which pairs should be compared in preference-based post-training. We formulate comparison curation as a sampling-design problem and evaluate designs by the quality of the final policy under the preference-based post-training objective. We instantiate this framework for Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), analyzing how the choice of labeled pairs propagates through DPO training to downstream policy performance. Our main results provide matching upper and lower bounds on the post-training optimality gap of the DPO-trained policy. The bounds show that comparison selection affects downstream performance through a single design-dependent information matrix, which links label allocation to parameter estimation error and policy suboptimality. This yields an explicit optimization criterion for budgeted comparison curation and motivates practical sampling designs for selecting informative pairs from large generated completion pools. Experiments on synthetic settings and language-model post-training benchmarks show that the proposed designs consistently improve sample efficiency over common comparison-selection heuristics.

Jiangze Han, Vineet Goyal, Will Ma

Columbia University

Pairwise Preference Learning Pairwise Comparison LLM Alignment Pairwise Preference Evaluation Direct Preference Optimization Data Selection+1

Jun 17, 2026cs.SD

PrefSQA: Pairwise Preference Prediction for Speech Quality Assessment and the Critical Role of High Quality Datasets

Mean opinion scores (MOS) are widely used for speech quality assessment, yet scalar labels are sensitive to rater variability and listening test differences. This introduces labeling noise, which limits the reliability of MOS prediction. Preference prediction reduces this variability as listeners compare signals directly, producing cleaner labels. We study MOS-free preference prediction and propose PrefSQA, which incorporates uncertainty-aware logits, an impairment attention head, and a module based on non-matching-reference comparisons. We use and refine five datasets, including MOS-derived and low-noise simulated sets with matching and non-matching content, experiment with human preference sets, and test on unseen data. Experiments show small improvements on MOS-derived data, while other sets reveal clear improvement over the baselines, highlighting the value of high-quality preference data and demonstrating the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Junyi Fan, Donald S. Williamson

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University, USA

Pairwise Preference Learning Pairwise Preference Evaluation Speech Quality Assessment

Jun 17, 2026cs.LG

UBP2: Uncertainty-Balanced Preference Planning for Efficient Preference-based Reinforcement Learning

Preference-based RL provides an approach to learning reward models from pairwise comparisons of behaviors, bypassing the need for explicit reward design. However, existing methods typically rely on passive data collection and suffer from poor sample efficiency, especially during the early stages of learning. We introduce a model-based approach that actively directs exploration by jointly reasoning over uncertainties in the reward, dynamics, and value functions. Our method, Uncertainty-Balanced Preference Planning (UBP2), uses ensembles of reward, dynamics, and value function models to evaluate candidate trajectories according to a unified score that combines expected reward, terminal value, and epistemic uncertainty. Planning under this objective yields an explicit tradeoff between exploitation and information acquisition without requiring ad hoc exploration heuristics. Under standard regularity assumptions, we establish sublinear regret guarantees for both finite-horizon and infinite-horizon settings. Empirically, experiments on the Meta-World benchmark show UBP2 achieves substantially higher sample efficiency than model-free preference-based methods and non-optimistic model-based baselines.

Mohamed Nabail, Leo Kaixuan Cheng, Jingmin Wang +1

Learning, Embodied Autonomy, and Forecasting (LEAF) Lab, University of Toronto

Pairwise Preference Evaluation RL Exploration Model-Based Planning Sample-Efficient RL Model-Based RL Preference-Based RL

Jun 17, 2026cs.LG

RouteJudge: An Open Platform for Reproducible and Preference-Aware LLM Routing

We present RouteJudge, an online pairwise preference evaluation framework for LLM routing systems, with a public platform available at https://routejudge.cn. Different from model-level response evaluation, RouteJudge focuses on router-level decision quality. For each user query, multiple routing strategies independently recommend candidate models under the same model pool and budget constraints. The selected model responses are then presented to users through anonymous pairwise comparisons, and the resulting user preferences are attributed back to the routing strategies behind the compared responses. Each evaluation record stores the query, routing decisions, model responses, preference labels, cost, latency, and task metadata, enabling preference-aware, cost-aware, and task-conditioned analysis of LLM routers. To support the continuous expansion of routing methods in RouteJudge, we further release ORBIT (Optimal Routing and Budgeted Inference Toolbox), a modular and extensible toolbox that standardizes the end-to-end workflow of LLM routing. ORBIT provides unified interfaces for benchmark loading, query representation, router implementation, budget-aware evaluation, and method comparison, allowing researchers to develop and evaluate routing algorithms under consistent protocols. It also serves as the submission and integration layer for RouteJudge: researchers can implement routing methods within ORBIT, validate them on existing routing benchmarks, and submit compatible routers for online preference-based evaluation. The code of ORBIT is available at https://github.com/LAMDA-Model-Reuse/ORBIT.

Guannan Lai, Haoran Hu, Han-Jia Ye

School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University, China · 2National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, 210023, China · 3SinapisAI

LLM Evaluation Pairwise Preference Evaluation Cost-Aware Inference LLM Routing

Jun 16, 2026cs.CL

Prompt Perturbation for Reliable LLM Evaluation over Comparison Graphs

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is important for understanding their capabilities, comparing competing systems, and supporting the deployment of reliable models in practice. For open-ended tasks, pairwise evaluation has become a popular paradigm, in which two responses to the same prompt are compared and the resulting judgments are aggregated into an overall ranking. A central challenge of this paradigm is intransitivity: the induced comparison outcomes may fail to support any coherent global ranking. For example, one may observe cyclic preferences such as

A \succ B \succ C \succ A

, or inconsistencies involving ties such as

A \equiv B\equiv C\neq A

. Such contradictions make the resulting leaderboard unstable and challenging to interpret. In this paper, we propose a prompt perturbation framework for improving the consistency of pairwise LLM evaluation. Our approach generates perturbed variants of each prompt, uses the resulting comparison graphs to identify and filter out structurally inconsistent comparison patterns, and then applies standard ranking methods to the filtered comparisons. A key feature of the proposed framework is that graph-level structural consistency is incorporated explicitly into the evaluation pipeline before ranking aggregation. This provides a simple and principled way to reduce cyclic inconsistencies and improve the reliability of LLM rankings.

Dong Huang, Jianbo Sun, Pengkun Yang

Department of Statistics and Data Science, Tsinghua University

LLM Evaluation Pairwise Comparison Language Model Generation Evaluation Pairwise Preference Evaluation Pairwise Ranking LLM Reliability