analiza aiqbench
This research introduces Reinforcement Learning with Comparative Evidence (RLCE), a novel method that trains socially intelligent AI models using unlabeled data by comparing multiple candidate answers rather than relying on scarce human annotations. By constructing dynamic evidence tests to validate interpretations of ambiguous social cues like intent and affect, the approach significantly outperforms existing baselines in benchmarks for pragmatics and communicative understanding. This advancement addresses a critical bottleneck in scaling social AI by reducing dependence on ground-truth rewards while improving robustness against erroneous policy-derived preferences.
Reinforcement Learning with Comparative Evidence for Social Intelligence
arXiv:2610.04072v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Developing socially intelligent AI remains heavily dependent on human-annotated data, limiting the scale and breadth of social understanding models can acquire. Methods that derive training signals from unlabeled data offer a path beyond this dependence, but social predictions lack the verification oracles available in mathematics and coding. Moreover, core social targets such as affect, intent, preference, and pragmatic meaning are often ambiguous. The same behavior can support multiple plausible interpretations, making it difficult to verify which is best supported. To address this challenge, we introduce Reinforcement Learning with Comparative Evidence (RLCE), a reinforcement learning method that learns social understanding from unlabeled training data without constructing rewards from ground-truth annotations. Given distinct answers in a rollout group, RLCE constructs evidence tests that identify observable evidence favoring an answer over another, validates these tests against the input sample, and aggregates test outcomes to determine the best-supported interpretation. Tests are regenerated as the policy produces new answers, enabling them to evolve with the policy. Across four benchmarks spanning affect, pragmatics, communicative intent, and preference, RLCE attains the strongest performance among seven methods that use no ground-truth training labels for rewards, including consensus, policy LLM-judge verification, multimodal co-evolution, and rubric-based rewards. Gains over the strongest baseline reach up to +18.93 points. Analyses further show that RLCE exhibits a larger share of reward variation between correct and incorrect predictions than compared rubric methods, can overturn erroneous policy-derived preferences, and benefits from pairwise test construction, compositional test aggregation, and on-policy test evolution.
Authors:Keane Ong, Yuriel Ryan, Sabri Boughorbel, Vladimir Necula, Jack Wei Lun Shi, Rui Mao, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, Adriel Kuek, Nancy F. Chen, Erik Cambria, Gianmarco Mengaldo, Paul Pu Liang
Abstract:Developing socially intelligent AI remains heavily dependent on human-annotated data, limiting the scale and breadth of social understanding models can acquire. Methods that derive training signals from unlabeled data offer a path beyond this dependence, but social predictions lack the verification oracles available in mathematics and coding. Moreover, core social targets such as affect, intent, preference, and pragmatic meaning are often ambiguous. The same behavior can support multiple plausible interpretations, making it difficult to verify which is best supported. To address this challenge, we introduce Reinforcement Learning with Comparative Evidence (RLCE), a reinforcement learning method that learns social understanding from unlabeled training data without constructing rewards from ground-truth annotations. Given distinct answers in a rollout group, RLCE constructs evidence tests that identify observable evidence favoring an answer over another, validates these tests against the input sample, and aggregates test outcomes to determine the best-supported interpretation. Tests are regenerated as the policy produces new answers, enabling them to evolve with the policy. Across four benchmarks spanning affect, pragmatics, communicative intent, and preference, RLCE attains the strongest performance among seven methods that use no ground-truth training labels for rewards, including consensus, policy LLM-judge verification, multimodal co-evolution, and rubric-based rewards. Gains over the strongest baseline reach up to +18.93 points. Analyses further show that RLCE exhibits a larger share of reward variation between correct and incorrect predictions than compared rubric methods, can overturn erroneous policy-derived preferences, and benefits from pairwise test construction, compositional test aggregation, and on-policy test evolution.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2610.04072 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2610.04072v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.04072 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 293 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026
Current AIs out-persuade professionals in lab settings but (probably) not in the world
LessWrong · 5 oct. 2026
[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · 17 sept. 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · 13 oct. 2026