Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 50 references

Different Feedback, Different Updates: Selective Self-Learning from User Interactions for Large Language Models

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read SLIFT splits each user feedback message into task-necessary fixes, conditional refinements, and noise, then routes each through its own LoRA adapter; the paper shows this selective routing transfers to held-out tasks where whole-message…

desk verdict SLIFT's Fix/Spec/Null decomposition and two-adapter split is a genuinely useful frame, and the experimental work is solid, but the Specialist's transferable selectivity is not actually demonstrated because the audit never tests the deployment-time input. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09109 v1 pith:YFXZ6OF6 submitted 2026-08-10 cs.AI

Xuanchen Li , Haitao Li , Yujia Zhou , Qingyi Pan , Heng Wang , Yiqun Liu , Min Zhang , Qingyao Ai This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords userfeedbackself-learningtask-relativedecompositionLoRAadapterscontinuallearninginstructionfollowingselectiveupdatefeedback-conditioneddistillation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that a single user feedback message usually bundles several distinct behavioral corrections, and that treating it as one supervision signal—or routing all of it through one learning pathway—wrongly generalizes some of its content. It introduces SLIFT, which uses the frozen base model to split each feedback into atomic components and label each component relative to the original task as Fix, Spec, or Null: requirements that every valid response must satisfy, compatible optional refinements, or content with no reliable positive update direction. Fix components are consolidated into default behavior by a Generalist LoRA adapter through feedback-conditioned self-distillation, while Spec components train a Specialist LoRA adapter to decide, from the task and the Generalist response alone, whether a refinement applies and remains unmet, and to emit residual guidance only then. On a simulated-feedback continual-learning benchmark and a corpus of real-user interactions, across two base models, the complete system beats single-pathway and memory-based alternatives on held-out tasks, and ablations show that removing atomic decomposition, task-relative labeling, or the separate Specialist pathway each costs performance. The paper's claim is that what matters is learning not only the change a feedback supports but the scope at which that change should generalize.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the three-way task-relative role assignment defined by the omission criterion: a component $c_{ij}$ is Fix if $V(x_i;c_{ij}) = V(x_i)$, Spec if $\varnothing \neq V(x_i;c_{ij}) \subsetneq V(x_i)$, and Null otherwise. This criterion turns the vague question of what should be learned from a feedback message into a set-containment check on the space of fully valid responses, and it determines which of two complementary LoRA adapters—Generalist or Specialist—receives the supervised signal. The Generalist's objective combines a KL term toward the Fix-conditioned hindsight distribution and a $\lambda_B$-weighted KL anchor toward the feedback-free distribution; the Specialist's objective is a balanced completion-only supervised fine-tuning loss over KEEP and APPLY targets built offline with Spec components as privileged information.

What would settle it

Collect a set of Spec components whose applicability is grounded only in a user preference never inferable from task content, such as 'make it funnier' with no stylistic cue in the task; train a Specialist and measure its APPLY agreement against a source-blind judge on those inputs. If the Specialist cannot do better than chance or near-always-KEEP on such cases while still matching the paper's gains, the conditional-refinement pathway is not doing the claimed transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

SLIFT establishes a task-relative decomposition of feedback into Fix, Spec, and Null roles, defined by whether a component selects the whole set of fully valid responses, a nonempty proper subregion, or no compatible subregion. Fix components supervise the Generalist, which is trained to reproduce the frozen backbone's hindsight distribution conditioned on Fix requirements while an unconditional KL anchor keeps unrelated behavior stable; Spec components supervise the Specialist, which is trained by completion-only supervised fine-tuning on the task and Generalist response to output either KEEP or APPLY followed by minimal residual guidance. At inference only the Generalist and Specialist adapters are active, with a single residual-guided integration pass when APPLY is chosen. The reported results—highest mean Norm-Score and Z-score on all four input-output length partitions of MemoryBench for both backbones, and gains on IFEval, AlpacaEval 2.0, and WildReward with MMLU-Pro roughly flat—support the claim that separating task-necessary consolidation from conditional refinement is what drives transfer.

Load-bearing premise

The Specialist must be able to tell, from only the visible task and the Generalist response, whether a Spec refinement applies and is still unmet, even though the refinement's existence was originally revealed only by the feedback that generated the training target.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If SLIFT is right, LLM updates from interaction logs can be parameter-only and still transfer to held-out tasks, avoiding the growing retrieval and memory cost of storing experiences at inference time.
  • Composite feedback no longer needs to be reduced to preference pairs or scalar rewards; atomic task-relative labels can convert it directly into dense token-level supervision.
  • The Generalist/Specialist split gives an explicit inductive bias over update scope, which should reduce overgeneralization of condition-specific feedback compared with single-adapter SFT, DPO, or SDPO.
  • Because Null components induce no positive update, the framework should be robust to noisy, irrelevant, or conflicting user turns that would otherwise inject false supervision.
  • The low APPLY and edit rates reported across test sets indicate that the Specialist's contribution comes from sparse, task-dependent refinements rather than uniform rewriting.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • One consequence the paper leaves implicit is that the Fix/Spec/Null distinction could serve as a general diagnostic for feedback quality: a corpus with a low fraction of fully usable feedback, like WildFB compared with MemoryBench, should yield smaller persistent gains, which matches the paper's own analysis.
  • The KEEP/APPLY formulation suggests an alternative to overgeneralization penalties: instead of regularizing against change, teach an explicit gating function for when to change, an idea that could transfer to other conditional-generation settings beyond user feedback.
  • A testable extension would be to replace the single frozen backbone used for extraction, role assignment, and target construction with a different model family for each stage, to measure how much of the method's success depends on the feedback-generation and target-construction model being identical to the deployed backbone.
  • The paper's two-batch online evolution experiment begins to probe iterative self-learning; a further step would be to run several rounds and ask whether the Fix/Spec/Null mix drifts as the policy improves, since the framework's gains may shrink on on-policy feedback that is already partially corrected.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces SLIFT, a framework for persistent learning from user feedback that decomposes each feedback message into atomic Fix (task-necessary), Spec (conditional refinement), and Null (no reliable positive update) components relative to the original task. It trains two separate LoRA adapters on a shared frozen backbone: a Generalist that consolidates Fix requirements into default behavior via feedback-conditioned self-distillation with a behavioral anchor, and a Specialist that observes only the task and Generalist response to decide whether to KEEP or APPLY residual guidance for applicable, unmet Spec refinements. Experiments on MemoryBench and WildFB across two backbones show improvements over retrieval, memory, and parametric baselines, with ablations, audits, online evolution, and efficiency analyses. The authors release code.

Significance. If the central claim holds, SLIFT is a valuable contribution to continual learning from user interactions: it offers a principled task-relative decomposition of composite feedback and maps each component to an appropriately scoped update, addressing a real gap in how feedback is converted into persistent behavioral change. The paper is unusually thorough for the area: two backbones, two feedback sources, five-run means, multiple baseline families, ablations of all major design choices, source-blind audits, an online evolution study, and a careful efficiency analysis. The explicit design choice that no benchmark score is used in either training objective is a strength that mitigates circularity concerns. The main unresolved issue is whether the Specialist's selectivity is truly transferable, as detailed in the major comment.

major comments (1)
  1. [3.5, A.3, C.6, Table 11] The central claim that the Specialist supplies residual guidance for applicable, unmet Spec refinements using only observable cues in (x_i, y_G_i) is not directly verified. Offline target construction in Section A.3 provides C_S_i as privileged information to the frozen backbone, and the audit in Table 11 also presents C_S_i to the independent judge; Section C.6 explicitly states that the audit 'evaluates the offline targets rather than the trained Specialist itself.' Since the Specialist is trained to predict these targets from (x_i, y_G_i) alone, the paper should provide direct evidence that the trained Specialist's KEEP/APPLY decisions on held-out tasks are appropriate when only deployment inputs are available. Concretely, the authors could audit a sample of test-time Specialist decisions by having a judge (or the same qwen3.7-max protocol, but without C_S_i) assess whether each APPLY decision is observably justified by the task and Generalist response, or construct a variant of the target pipeline that does not use C_S_i at all to show the decision is recoverable. Without such evidence, the positive Delta_S gains in Table 3 could reflect memorized distributional correlates from the privileged targets rather than transferable selectivity, which is the load-bearing premise of the proposed Generalist/Specialist specialization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [C.6] The sentence 'This audit evaluates the offline targets rather than the trained Specialist itself' is an important limitation and should be stated in the main text (e.g., in Section 5 or the conclusion) rather than only in the appendix, and the authors should explain why the current evidence nevertheless supports the transferability claim.
  2. [A.6, Eq. (31)] The off-policy surrogate for the Generalist is justified by a bound involving the total-variation distance between the logged-prefix distribution and the on-policy distribution, but the paper does not provide any empirical estimate of this distance or a sensitivity analysis with respect to it; a brief discussion or a small experiment measuring distribution shift would strengthen the theoretical grounding.
  3. [4.1.1, Table 2] The 'MemoryBench Avg. Norm-Score' column header in Table 2 is defined in the text as an unweighted mean of the four partition-level Norm-Scores, but this definition is easy to miss; adding a footnote or a more descriptive header would improve clarity.
  4. [Figure 11] The anti-circularity instruction in Figure 11 ('Do not use the fact that it appeared in feedback as such a cue') is central to the method's validity, but it is only shown in the appendix; moving it or a compressed version into the main method section would help readers assess the design at the point where the Specialist pathway is introduced.
  5. [5.2, Table 3] The statement that the Specialist is 'nearly inactive on Short–Long and entirely inactive on MMLU-Pro' is correct given the APPLY rates, but a brief explanation of why the Specialist is inactive on those partitions (e.g., no observable cues for refinement) would aid interpretation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: SLIFT's predictions are judged on held-out external benchmarks, and the Specialist's privileged-target construction is a validation gap, not a definitional equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Fix/Spec/Null labels are extracted by the frozen backbone using a task-relative rubric, not assumed as ground truth; the Generalist objective (Eq. 15 / A.2) is a KL distillation of a feedback-conditioned hindsight distribution and contains no benchmark score, as the paper states: 'No benchmark score is used in either training objective.' The Specialist objective (Eq. 21 / A.4) trains on targets constructed offline with Spec components as privileged information, but the construction prompt explicitly forbids using feedback presence as evidence: 'Do not use the fact that it appeared in feedback as such a cue' (Figure 11). At inference the Specialist receives only (x, y_G), so its APPLY/KEEP decisions and residual guidance cannot be read off from the training targets by construction; any test-time gain must transfer. The held-out evaluations (MemoryBench, IFEval, AlpacaEval 2.0, WildReward, MMLU-Pro) are external to the training objectives. The paper itself flags the one relevant limitation in Section C.6: 'This audit evaluates the offline targets rather than the trained Specialist itself.' That gap weakens the evidence for the Specialist's transferable selectivity, but it is a generalization/validation risk, not a circular reduction. The only self-citations are to the MemoryBench benchmark [2] and the authors' own prior methods [11, 12], used as evaluation resource and related work, respectively; none is a load-bearing uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or fitted parameter. Score 1 reflects these non-load-bearing self-citations without treating them as circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The method rests on four main assumptions: the task-valid region is inferable and is the correct reference for classifying feedback; feedback is decomposable into atomic components; Spec applicability is inferable from observable task/response cues alone; and the off-policy SDPO surrogate is a valid approximation with a small distribution-shift term. These are domain assumptions about the data and the backbone's abilities, not derived results. The free parameters are hyperparameters chosen by hand (anchor weight 0.5, 1:1 KEEP/APPLY balance, LoRA ranks), none of which are fitted to the evaluation metrics. The Generalist and Specialist adapters are new trainable components whose effectiveness is demonstrated only on internal benchmarks and audits, not through independent external predictions.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda_B (behavioral anchor weight) = 0.5
    Chosen by hand in Table 4 to balance the hindsight-distillation KL and the feedback-free anchor KL in Eq. 4; no sensitivity analysis is reported.
  • KEEP/APPLY resampling ratio = 1:1
    Specialist training set balances KEEP and APPLY targets by upsampling KEEP (Section A.3), following prior critic training; the ratio is a design choice.
  • LoRA ranks and scales = Generalist 64/128, Specialist 16/32
    Adapter capacities chosen in Table 4; these affect how much the two pathways can learn but are not fitted to evaluation metrics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The task-valid region V(x_i) is inferable from the original task and is the correct semantic reference for interpreting feedback.
    Used in Section 3.3 Eq. 3 to define Fix vs Spec by equality or subset relations on V(x_i); if V(x_i) cannot be reliably inferred, role assignment collapses.
  • domain assumption User feedback can be decomposed into a set of atomic, self-contained components carrying single learning signals.
    Eq. 2 in Section 3.3; the entire pipeline operates on extracted components, and extraction is performed by the same frozen backbone.
  • domain assumption Spec applicability can be determined from observable cues in the task and Generalist response alone, without assuming unobserved user preference.
    Figure 11 prompt instructions in Section B.2 restrict target construction to observable cues; this is the load-bearing premise for Specialist transfer.
  • standard math The off-policy SDPO surrogate is a valid approximation of the on-policy objective, requiring bounded gradients and small total variation distance between logged and on-policy prefix distributions.
    Section A.6 Eq. 31 gives the bound; the distribution-shift term is not measured in the experiments.
invented entities (2)
  • Generalist LoRA adapter
    purpose: Consolidates Fix requirements into default behavior via feedback-conditioned self-distillation.
    Its contribution is shown through internal ablations (SLIFT-Gen) and stage-wise analysis, but no falsifiable prediction outside the paper's benchmarks is provided.
  • Specialist LoRA adapter
    purpose: Observes task and Generalist response, outputs KEEP or APPLY with residual guidance for unmet Spec refinements.
    Same internal-evidence basis: ablations and KEEP-supervision sensitivity, plus audits by the same model family.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Different Feedback, Different Updates: Selective Self-Learning from User Interactions for Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YFXZ6OF6

@misc{pith2026260809109,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Different Feedback, Different Updates: Selective Self-Learning from User Interactions for Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YFXZ6OF6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09109}
}
read the original abstract

User feedback offers natural supervision for persistent LLM improvement, but a single message may support multiple behavioral changes with different scopes of generalization. We introduce SLIFT, a selective self-learning framework built on a task-relative view of user feedback. SLIFT decomposes each feedback message into atomic components and interprets each component relative to the original task as Fix, Spec, or Null: requirements for task validity, compatible condition-specific refinements, or content with no reliable positive update direction. To incorporate each change at the appropriate scope, SLIFT trains two complementary LoRA adapters on a shared frozen backbone: a Generalist that consolidates Fix requirements into default behavior through feedback-conditioned self-distillation, and a Specialist that observes only the task and Generalist response to supply residual guidance for applicable, unmet Spec refinements. Null components induce no positive update. Across backbones, SLIFT achieves strong performance on both MemoryBench and WildFB, with targeted analyses further examining its underlying mechanisms. We release our code at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/SLIFT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09109 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of task-relative feedback decomposition. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of SLIFT. those that are ambiguous, irrelevant, conflicting, or that raise a separate request. For each remaining component, define: V (𝑥𝑖 ;𝑐𝑖𝑗) =  𝑦 ∈ V (𝑥𝑖) | 𝑦 |= 𝑐𝑖𝑗 , (3) where 𝑦 |= 𝑐𝑖𝑗 means that 𝑦 satisfies the property expressed by 𝑐𝑖𝑗 . The omission criterion then distinguishes the two positive learn￾ing roles. If V (𝑥𝑖 ;𝑐𝑖𝑗) = V (𝑥𝑖), every fully valid response must satisfy the component; omi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Results on WildFB across four metrics and two backbones. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Online evolution on MemoryBench (Qwen3-8B). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Offline parameter-update and per-query inference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Prompt for atomic feedback-component extraction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Task-only serialization used by the Generalist stu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Feedback-conditioned serialization used by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Prompt for the frozen Generalist’s single residual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prompt for constructing offline Specialist targets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Prompt observed by the Specialist during training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: An observed APPLY trace on AlpacaEval 2.0. The Generalist response already satisfies every explicit request, while the Specialist adds a compatible, nonessential refine￾ment that improves concision and presentation. Specialist targets. For each source, we sample 250 t…
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: C.8 Stage-wise Contributions Subtracting adjacent endpoints reproduces all ΔG and ΔS values in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Griffin Adams, Han-Chin Shing, Qing Sun, Christopher Winestock, Kathleen McKeown, and Noémie Elhadad. 2022. Learning to Revise References for Faithful Summarization. InFindings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: EMNLP 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics, 4009–4027. doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.296

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.296 2022

  2. [2]

    Qingyao Ai, Yichen Tang, Changyue Wang, Jianming Long, Weihang Su, and Yiqun Liu. 2026. MemoryBench: A Benchmark for Memory and Continual Learning in LLM Systems. arXiv:2510.17281 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2510. 17281

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Afra Feyza Akyurek, Ekin Akyurek, Ashwin Kalyan, Peter Clark, Derry Tanti Wijaya, and Niket Tandon. 2023. RL4F: Generating Natural Language Feedback with Reinforcement Learning for Repairing Model Outputs. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Lingui...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.427 2023

  4. [4]

    Yichen Cai, Jiayang Li, Junyuan Qiu, Jingya Guo, Weitao You, Changyuan Yang, Lingyun Sun, and Pei Chen. 2026. IEvoAgent: Evolving Conversational Agent based on User Implicit Feedback. InProceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, San Diego, Cali...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2026.acl-long.441 2026

  5. [5]

    Zizhao Chen, Mustafa Omer Gul, Yiwei Chen, Gloria Geng, Anne Wu, and Yoav Artzi. 2025. Retrospective Learning from Interactions. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, Vienna, Austria, 24580–24606. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1200

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.1200 2025

  6. [6]

    Hashimoto

    Yann Dubois, Balázs Galambosi, Percy Liang, and Tatsunori B. Hashimoto. 2025. Length-Controlled AlpacaEval: A Simple Way to Debias Automatic Evaluators. arXiv:2404.04475 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04475

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen

    Edward J. Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. arXiv:2106.09685 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.09685

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Jonas Hübotter, Frederike Lübeck, Lejs Behric, Anton Baumann, Marco Bagatella, Daniel Marta, Ido Hakimi, Idan Shenfeld, Thomas Kleine Buening, Carlos Guestrin, and Andreas Krause. 2026. Reinforcement Learning via Self-Distillation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.20802(2026). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2601.20802

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.20802 2026

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Jiazheng Kang, Mingming Ji, Zhe Zhao, and Ting Bai. 2025. Memory OS of AI Agent. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, Suzhou, China, 25961–25970. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1318

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    Thomas Kleine Buening, Jonas Hübotter, Barna Pásztor, Idan Shenfeld, Giorgia Ramponi, and Andreas Krause. 2026. Aligning Language Models from User Interactions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.12273(2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2603. 12273

    2026

  3. [11]

    Xuancheng Li, Haitao Li, Yujia Zhou, Yiqun Liu, and Qingyao Ai. 2026. Be- yond Experience Retrieval: Learning to Generate Utility-Optimized Structured Experience for Frozen LLMs. InProceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume ...

    2026 doi

  4. [12]

    Xuancheng Li, Haitao Li, Yujia Zhou, YiqunLiu, and Qingyao Ai. 2026. MulFeRL: Enhancing Reinforcement Learning with Verbal Feedback in a Multi-turn Loop. arXiv:2601.22900 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22900

    2026 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Zhiyu Li, Shichao Song, Chenyang Xi, Hanyu Wang, Chen Tang, Simin Niu, et al

  6. [14]

    Liu, Kartik Khandelwal, Sandeep Subramanian, Victor Jouault, Abhinav Rastogi, et al

    Alexander H. Liu, Kartik Khandelwal, Sandeep Subramanian, Victor Jouault, Abhinav Rastogi, et al. 2026. Ministral 3.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.08584(2026). https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08584

    2026 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Hao Liu, Carmelo Sferrazza, and Pieter Abbeel. 2023. Chain of Hindsight Aligns Language Models with Feedback. arXiv:2302.02676 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2302.02676

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Yuhan Liu, Michael JQ Zhang, and Eunsol Choi. 2025. User Feedback in Human- LLM Dialogues: A Lens to Understand Users But Noisy as a Learning Signal. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Lingui...

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    Renjie Luo, Zichen Liu, Xiangyan Liu, Chao Du, Min Lin, Wenhu Chen, Wei Lu, and Tianyu Pang. 2025. Language Models Can Learn from Verbal Feedback Without Scalar Rewards. arXiv:2509.22638 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2509. 22638

    2025

  10. [18]

    McClelland, Bruce L

    James L. McClelland, Bruce L. McNaughton, and Randall C. O’Reilly. 1995. Why There Are Complementary Learning Systems in the Hippocampus and Neocortex: Insights from the Successes and Failures of Connectionist Models of Learning and Memory.Psychological Review102, 3 (1995), 41...

    1995 doi

  11. [19]

    Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll L. Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F. Christiano, Jan Leik...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Hao Peng, Yunjia Qi, Xiaozhi Wang, Zijun Yao, Lei Hou, and Juanzi Li. 2026. WildReward: Learning Reward Models from In-the-Wild Human Interactions. InProceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association fo...

    2026 doi

  13. [21]

    Qwen Team. 2026. Qwen3.6-Plus: Towards Real World Agents. https://qwen.ai/ blog?id=qwen3.6

    2026

  14. [22]

    Qwen Team. 2026. Qwen3.7: The Agent Frontier. https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3. 7

    2026

  15. [23]

    Manning, and Chelsea Finn

    Rafael Rafailov, Archit Sharma, Eric Mitchell, Stefano Ermon, Christopher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. 2024. Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model. arXiv:2305.18290 [cs.LG] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2305.18290

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza

    Stephen E. Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. 2009. The Probabilistic Relevance Framework: BM25 and Beyond.Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 3, 4 (2009), 333–389. doi:10.1561/1500000019

    2009 doi

  17. [25]

    Taiwei Shi, Zhuoer Wang, Longqi Yang, Ying-Chun Lin, Zexue He, Mengting Wan, Pei Zhou, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Sihao Chen, Shan Xia, Hongfei Zhang, Jieyu Zhao, Xiaofeng Xu, Xia Song, and Jennifer Neville. 2026. WildFeedback: Aligning LLMs With In-situ User Interactions And Feedbac...

    2026

  18. [26]

    Moritz Pascal Stephan, Alexander Khazatsky, Eric Mitchell, Annie S Chen, Sh- eryl Hsu, Archit Sharma, and Chelsea Finn. 2024. RLVF: Learning from Verbal Feedback without Overgeneralization. InProceedings of the 41st International Con- ference on Machine Learning (Proceedings o...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Zhengyang Tang, Ziniu Li, Zhenyang Xiao, Tian Ding, Ruoyu Sun, Benyou Wang, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Tianyu Liu, Bowen Yu, and Junyang Lin. 2025. Self- Evolving Critique Abilities in Large Language Models. arXiv:2501.05727 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.05727

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Aaron David Tucker, Kianté Brantley, Adam Cahall, and Thorsten Joachims. 2024. Coactive Learning for Large Language Models using Implicit User Feedback. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, Vol. 235)...

    2024

  21. [29]

    Yubo Wang, Xueguang Ma, Ge Zhang, Yuansheng Ni, Abhranil Chandra, Shiguang Guo, Weiming Ren, Aaran Arulraj, Xuan He, Ziyan Jiang, Tianle Li, Max Ku, Kai Wang, Alex Zhuang, Rongqi Fan, Xiang Yue, and Wenhu Chen. 2024. MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language ...

    2024

  22. [30]

    Chi, Chi Wang, Shuo Chen, Fernando Pereira, Wang-Cheng Kang, and Derek Zhiyuan Cheng

    Tianxin Wei, Noveen Sachdeva, Benjamin Coleman, Zhankui He, Yuanchen Bei, Xuying Ning, Mengting Ai, Yunzhe Li, Jingrui He, Ed H. Chi, Chi Wang, Shuo Chen, Fernando Pereira, Wang-Cheng Kang, and Derek Zhiyuan Cheng. 2025. Evo-Memory: Benchmarking LLM Agent Test-Time Learning wi...

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    Wujiang Xu, Zujie Liang, Kai Mei, Hang Gao, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang

  24. [32]

    Jianhao Yan, Yun Luo, and Yue Zhang. 2024. RefuteBench: Evaluating Refuting Instruction-Following for Large Language Models. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024. Association for Computational Linguis- tics, Bangkok, Thailand, 13775–13791. doi:...

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    arXiv:2502.12110 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12110

    A-MEM: Agentic Memory for LLM Agents. arXiv:2502.12110 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12110

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Yiming Zeng, Jinghan Cao, Zexin Li, Wanhao Yu, Zhankai Ye, Dawei Xiang, Ting Hua, Xin Liu, Shangqian Gao, and Tingting Yu. 2026. HyperEdit: Unlocking Instruction-based Text Editing in LLMs via Hypernetworks. InFindings of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: ACL 20...

    2026 doi

  27. [35]

    An Yang et al. 2025. Qwen3 Technical Report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388 (2025). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2505.09388

    2025 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    Wenting Zhao, Xiang Ren, Jack Hessel, Claire Cardie, Yejin Choi, and Yun- tian Deng. 2024. WildChat: 1M ChatGPT Interaction Logs in the Wild. arXiv:2405.01470 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.01470

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Yanzhao Zhang, Mingxin Li, Dingkun Long, Xin Zhang, Huan Lin, Baosong Yang, Pengjun Xie, An Yang, Dayiheng Liu, Junyang Lin, Fei Huang, and Jingren Zhou

  30. [38]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv

    Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05176(2025). doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2506.05176

    2025 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    Xing, Joseph E

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Tianle Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhang- hao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zhuohan Li, Zi Lin, Eric P. Xing, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and Hao Zhang. 2024. LMSYS-Chat-1M: A Large-Scale Real-World LLM Conversation Dataset. arXiv:2309.11998 [cs.CL]...

    2024 arXiv

  32. [41]

    components

    Jeffrey Zhou, Tianjian Lu, Swaroop Mishra, Siddhartha Brahma, Sujoy Basu, Yi Luan, Denny Zhou, and Le Hou. 2023. Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07911(2023). https: //arxiv.org/abs/2311.07911 A Algorithmic Details ofSLIFT Th...

    2023 arXiv

  33. [42]

    This includes ambiguity, irrelevance, conflict with TASK, pure reaction without a requested change, and a separate deliverable

    Return NULL if the component does not specify a compatible property of an answer to TASK. This includes ambiguity, irrelevance, conflict with TASK, pure reaction without a requested change, and a separate deliverable

  34. [43]

    Otherwise return FIX iff every fully valid answer to TASK must satisfy the component; omitting it would make the answer incorrect or incomplete

  35. [44]

    role": "FIX

    Otherwise return SPEC: the component is compatible with TASK, but a fully valid answer may omit it. The fact that a later user stated the component is not evidence that it was required by TASK. When the criteria cannot be applied reliably, return NULL. Return JSON only: {"role...

  36. [45]

    action":

    [FIX COMPONENT 2] ... Figure 10: Feedback-conditioned serialization used by the frozen hindsight teacher. Offline Specialist-target construction.This is the only Specialist- related prompt that receives𝐶𝑆 𝑖 . TheSpeccomponents are privi- leged offline information and are not i...

    2018

  37. [46]

    Benchmark input (verbatim) phrase an email to my manager kindly asking for feedback for a dashboard I sent him for his use, and also ask him if I should publish this dashboard to the team, and if there’s a certain way he wants me to publish it, or certain orientation to emphas...

  38. [47]

    I’m following up on the dashboard I sent for your use and would appreciate your feedback on its clarity, usefulness, and any areas that could be improved

    Generalist response𝑦 𝐺 Subject: Feedback and Guidance on Dashboard Sharing Hi [Manager’s Name], I hope you’re doing well. I’m following up on the dashboard I sent for your use and would appreciate your feedback on its clarity, usefulness, and any areas that could be improved. ...

  39. [48]

    action":

    Specialist output {"action": "APPLY", "guidance": ["Make the email easier for a busy manager to scan: shorten the opening and present the publication-channel and emphasis questions as two brief bullets. Preserve the professional tone and every requested decision."]}

  40. [49]

    Thank you for your guidance

    Integrated response Subject: Feedback and Guidance on Dashboard Sharing Hi [Manager’s Name], Could you please share your feedback on the dashboard I sent, particularly anything that should be improved or clarified? If you think it should be shared with the team, could you also...

  41. [50]

    Target- consistent

    Pairwise evaluation outcome The pairwise evaluator prefers the integrated response over the Generalist response. Figure 14: An observed APPLY trace on AlpacaEval 2.0. The Generalist response already satisfies every explicit request, while the Specialist adds a compatible, none...

    2018

  42. [2025]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2507.03724

    MemOS: A Memory OS for AI System.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.03724 (2025). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2507.03724

    2025 doi arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.