Skip to content
Conference Open access

Check Your Work: Structured Checklist Feedback for Improving Large Language Models

2026 · Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · pp. 16649-16688 · 0 citations · 61 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

This work proposes that AI feedback is most effective when decomposed into granular, prompt-specific checklists, and introduces DIVA: DIscriminative VAriance weighting, a dynamic aggregation scheme that prioritises checklist items based on their ability to distinguish quality across a candidate pool.

Abstract

Much recent progress in Large Language Model (LLM) performance has been driven by verifiable feedback in deterministic domains like mathematics and code. However, scaling reinforcement learning (RL) and test-time compute in domains for which strict verification is infeasible remains a challenge. A common approach is to use an LLM-as-judge, which often relies on opaque, monolithic scores. In this work, we propose that AI feedback is most effective when decomposed into granular, prompt-specific checklists. To transform these checklists into a scalar reward, we introduce DIVA: DIscriminative VAriance weighting, a dynamic aggregation scheme that prioritises checklist items based on their ability to distinguish quality across a candidate pool. This ensures the reward signal focuses on the most salient criteria for a given prompt and response group, rather than being diluted by trivial or redundant constraints. Our approach yields an 11.8% win-rate improvement on AlpacaEval 2.0 using Qwen3-8B, outperforming holistic reward models and existing checklist baselines. Beyond training, we show that these checklists serve as a structured policy improvement operator at inference time — by using the model’s own checklist evaluation as localised contextual feedback, the model can iteratively refine its output. This self-correction mechanism out-performs free-form sequential self-correction, offering a unified and interpretable framework for scaling both training-time and test-time performance in domains lacking strict verifiers.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Jul 2026

Harnessing LLMs for Reliable Academic Supervision: A Comparative Study

This work compares a baseline Academic Supervision Assistant, a GPT-5 chatbot with no scaffolding, against a multi-module system, Academic Supervision System (ASuS) that wraps the much smaller GPT-4o-mini in a LangGraph harness, and argues that where reliability, traceability, and institutional consistency matter more...

Akash Raj · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Aug 2026

Test-Time Scaling in the Wild: Why Exploitation, Not Exploration, Is the Bottleneck

The first compute-normalised comparison of five TTS families across five open-ended generation benchmarks spanning medicine, law, finance, general chat, and creative writing is conducted - grounded in a unified framework that decomposes the effectiveness of each method's token budget into exploration and exploitation.

Davide Romano, Kanak Raj, Jerrod Parker et al. · 0 citations
Review Jul 2026

ConfidenceBench: Evaluating Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models

ConfidenceBench, a calibration benchmark that evaluates verbalized confidence estimates in 15 frontier LLMs using the Brier score, a proper scoring rule that incentivises truthful probability reporting shows that verbalized confidence calibration is a distinct and practically important axis of LLM reliability, compleme...

M. ffrench-Constant, Daniel Yang, Xinmeng Huang et al. · 1 citation · ⚡1
Preprint Aug 2026

What Proves You Wrong: Benchmarking Language Models on Falsifiable Research Ideation

The Lit2Test benchmark centers on a six-field contract organized around a falsifying outcome, so that every proposal precommits the observation that would prove it wrong, making its quality decidable in the first place rather than merely arguable.

Zi-Yue Wang, Aomufei Yuan, Yi-Ran Yao et al. · 2 citations
#machine learning Preprint Aug 2026

Thinking in a Low-Resource Language: What SFT Builds, What RL Fixes, What Accuracy Cannot See

Take three frontier mixture-of-experts models (Alibaba, OpenAI, NVIDIA; 3.6-4.0B active parameters each) and fine-tune them to reason in a low-resource language. On accuracy benchmarks almost nothing happens, and the benchmark itself is noise at this scale: changing only the random seed moves the score by 7.7 points, m...

Ayoub Kirouane, Christos Petrocheilos · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

RecurSE: Bounded Recursive Self-Evaluation for LLM Rubric Judges

This work eliminates external gold supervision from the RL training reward: the model's own evaluative capability generates learning signals for its optimization -- a closed-loop setting of bounded recursive self-improvement (RSI) termed Recursive Self-Evaluation (RecurSE).

Kai-Yuan Liu, Ziyuan Zhuang, Rong-Xiang Weng et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.