Conversation for Non-verifiable Learning: Self-Evolving LLMs through Meta-Evaluation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.21464v1
• Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:41:14 GMT
• Title: Conversation for Non-verifiable Learning: Self-Evolving LLMs through Meta-Evaluation
• Authors: Yuan Sui, Bryan Hooi,
• Abstract summary: CoNL is a framework that unifies generation, evaluation, and meta-evaluation through multi-agent self-play.<n>CoNL achieves consistent improvements over self-rewarding baselines while maintaining stable training.
• Score: 56.84819098277464
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Training large language models (LLMs) for non-verifiable tasks, such as creative writing, dialogue, and ethical reasoning, remains challenging due to the absence of ground-truth labels. While LLM-as-Judge approaches offer a scalable alternative to human feedback, they face a fundamental limitation: performance is constrained by the evaluator's own quality. If the judge cannot recognize good solutions, it cannot provide useful training signals, and evaluation biases (e.g., favoring verbosity over quality) remain unaddressed. This motivates meta-evaluation: the ability to evaluate and improve the evaluator itself. We introduce CoNL, a framework that unifies generation, evaluation, and meta-evaluation through multi-agent self-play. Our key insight: critique quality can be measured by whether it helps others improve their solutions. In CoNL, multiple agents sharing the same policy engage in structured conversations to propose, critique, and revise solutions. Critiques that enable solution improvements earn a diagnostic reward, creating explicit supervision for meta-evaluation and enabling joint optimization of generation and judging capabilities through self-play, without external judges or ground truth. Experiments on five benchmarks show that CoNL achieves consistent improvements over self-rewarding baselines while maintaining stable training.

Related papers

• Agent0-VL: Exploring Self-Evolving Agent for Tool-Integrated Vision-Language Reasoning [52.99434388759101]
  We propose a self-evolving vision-language agent that achieves continual improvement with tool-integrated reasoning.<n>Agent0-VL incorporates tool usage not only into reasoning but also into self-evaluation and self-repair.<n>Our experiments show that Agent0-VL achieves an 12.5% improvement over the base model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T04:15:14Z)
• When AIs Judge AIs: The Rise of Agent-as-a-Judge Evaluation for LLMs [8.575522204707958]
  Large language models (LLMs) grow in capability and autonomy, evaluating their outputs-especially in open-ended and complex tasks-has become a critical bottleneck.<n>A new paradigm is emerging: using AI agents as the evaluators themselves.<n>In this review, we define the agent-as-a-judge concept, trace its evolution from single-model judges to dynamic multi-agent debate frameworks, and critically examine their strengths and shortcomings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T01:42:25Z)
• J1: Incentivizing Thinking in LLM-as-a-Judge via Reinforcement Learning [54.85131761693927]
  We introduce J1, a reinforcement learning framework for teaching LLM judges to think before making decisions.<n>Our core contribution lies in converting all judgment tasks for non-verifiable and verifiable prompts into a unified format with verifiable rewards.<n>We then use RL to train thinking-judges at scales of 8B, 32B, and 70B and show that they obtain state-of-the-art performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T14:05:15Z)
• RealCritic: Towards Effectiveness-Driven Evaluation of Language Model Critiques [59.861013614500024]
  We introduce a new benchmark designed to assess the critique capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Unlike existing benchmarks, which typically function in an open-loop fashion, our approach employs a closed-loop methodology that evaluates the quality of corrections generated from critiques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-24T13:48:10Z)
• Self-Evolving Critique Abilities in Large Language Models [59.861013614500024]
  This paper explores enhancing critique abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We introduce SCRIT, a framework that trains LLMs with self-generated data to evolve their critique abilities.<n>Our analysis reveals that SCRIT's performance scales positively with data and model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-10T05:51:52Z)
• CriticBench: Benchmarking LLMs for Critique-Correct Reasoning [26.45110574463893]
  CriticBench is a benchmark designed to assess Large Language Models' abilities to critique and rectify their reasoning. We evaluate and dissect the performance of 17 LLMs in generation, critique, and correction reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-22T18:59:02Z)
• Evaluate What You Can't Evaluate: Unassessable Quality for Generated Response [56.25966921370483]
  There are challenges in using reference-free evaluators based on large language models. Reference-free evaluators are more suitable for open-ended examples with different semantics responses. There are risks in using eference-free evaluators based on LLMs to evaluate the quality of dialogue responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T02:52:48Z)
• The Meta-Evaluation Problem in Explainable AI: Identifying Reliable Estimators with MetaQuantus [10.135749005469686]
  One of the unsolved challenges in the field of Explainable AI (XAI) is determining how to most reliably estimate the quality of an explanation method. We address this issue through a meta-evaluation of different quality estimators in XAI. Our novel framework, MetaQuantus, analyses two complementary performance characteristics of a quality estimator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T18:59:02Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.