GrowLoop: Self-Evolving Conversation Evaluation Seeded by Human

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.28882v1
• Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 16:53:14 GMT
• Title: GrowLoop: Self-Evolving Conversation Evaluation Seeded by Human
• Abstract summary: We propose GrowLoop, a self-evolving evaluation system that continuously adapts as models advance and scenarios shift.<n>Our work shifts the paradigm from manual updates or difficulty scaling to comprehensive, continuous self-evolution.
• Score: 7.998927393247182
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: With the rapid advancement of large language models, evaluating human-likeness in open-ended conversation has become increasingly important. However, human-likeness is a form of tacit knowledge that humans perceive intuitively, yet the underlying criteria resist explicit formulation. Human judgments vary widely, with strong agreement on some cases and legitimate disagreement on others. Meanwhile, the criteria behind human judgments remain implicit, leaving no clear basis for constructing cases. Further, what counts as human-like is not static, but evolving with model capability and human expectations. Despite progress in evaluation methods such as expert-authored benchmarks, Reward Models, and self-evolving benchmarks, none addresses all three challenges simultaneously. Therefore, we propose GrowLoop, a self-evolving conversation evaluation system that continuously adapts as models advance and scenarios shift. With minimal human seed annotations as the first mover, LLM agents iteratively extract and refine evaluation rubrics through Heuristic Learning. Human-AI agreement is required where annotators converge, while only plausibility is expected where they diverge. Moreover, the Rubric-Case co-evolution mechanism enables continuous evolution, expanded through new seeds when the evaluation target moves. Applied to human-likeness evaluation in open-ended conversation, the generated rubrics not only substantially outperform existing methods in alignment with human judgments, but also uncover issues that annotators overlook. The resulting benchmark effectively discriminates models across capability tiers and reveals where they fall short, while generalizing to new scenarios and adapting as models advance. Our work shifts the benchmarking paradigm from manual updates or difficulty scaling to comprehensive, continuous self-evolution.

Related papers

• Aspire: Can Models Self-Evolve from Vague Goals? [61.65007006747275]
  We introduce ASPIRE, a benchmark for vague-goal-driven self-evolution.<n>ASPIRE supports both model-weight and agent-harness evolution in a unified interactive environment.<n>Our experiments show that vague goals redirect search effort toward goal interpretation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-31T17:14:59Z)
• Uneven Evolution of Cognition Across Generations of Generative AI Models [13.772329509422201]
  The pursuit of artificial general intelligence requires robust methods for evaluating the cognitive capabilities of models beyond narrow task performance.<n>Here, we introduce a psychometric framework to assess the cognitive profiles of generative AI, comparing them to human norms and tracking their evolution across generations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T18:16:49Z)
• HumanLLM: Towards Personalized Understanding and Simulation of Human Nature [72.55730315685837]
  HumanLLM is a foundation model designed for personalized understanding and simulation of individuals.<n>We first construct the Cognitive Genome, a large-scale corpus curated from real-world user data on platforms like Reddit, Twitter, Blogger, and Amazon.<n>We then formulate diverse learning tasks and perform supervised fine-tuning to empower the model to predict a wide range of individualized human behaviors, thoughts, and experiences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T09:27:27Z)
• Gesture Generation (Still) Needs Improved Human Evaluation Practices: Insights from a Community-Driven State-of-the-Art Benchmark [55.41250396114216]
  We review human evaluation practices in automated, speech-driven 3D gesture generation.<n>We introduce a detailed human evaluation protocol for the widely-used BEAT2 motion-capture dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-03T05:17:28Z)
• Artificial Hivemind: The Open-Ended Homogeneity of Language Models (and Beyond) [90.45301024940329]
  Language models (LMs) often struggle to generate diverse, human-like creative content.<n>We introduce Infinity-Chat, a large-scale dataset of 26K diverse, real-world, open-ended user queries.<n>We present a large-scale study of mode collapse in LMs, revealing a pronounced Artificial Hivemind effect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-27T03:16:21Z)
• HugAgent: Benchmarking LLMs for Simulation of Individualized Human Reasoning [27.80877165363182]
  We introduce HugAgent, which rethinks human reasoning simulation along three dimensions.<n>The benchmark is open-sourced as HugAgent and TraceYourThinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-16T21:03:54Z)
• Empirically evaluating commonsense intelligence in large language models with large-scale human judgments [4.212429064310439]
  We propose a method for evaluating common sense in artificial intelligence.<n>We measure the correspondence between a model's judgment and that of a human population.<n>Our framework contributes to the growing call for adapting AI models to human collectivities that possess different, often incompatible, social stocks of knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-15T13:55:27Z)
• The Superalignment of Superhuman Intelligence with Large Language Models [63.96120398355404]
  We discuss the concept of superalignment from the learning perspective to answer this question.<n>We highlight some key research problems in superalignment, namely, weak-to-strong generalization, scalable oversight, and evaluation.<n>We present a conceptual framework for superalignment, which consists of three modules: an attacker which generates adversary queries trying to expose the weaknesses of a learner model; a learner which will refine itself by learning from scalable feedbacks generated by a critic model along with minimal human experts; and a critic which generates critics or explanations for a given query-response pair, with a target of improving the learner by criticizing.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-15T10:34:06Z)
• Can Language Models Learn to Skip Steps? [59.84848399905409]
  We study the ability to skip steps in reasoning. Unlike humans, who may skip steps to enhance efficiency or to reduce cognitive load, models do not possess such motivations. Our work presents the first exploration into human-like step-skipping ability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-04T07:10:24Z)
• It HAS to be Subjective: Human Annotator Simulation via Zero-shot Density Estimation [15.8765167340819]
  Human annotator simulation (HAS) serves as a cost-effective substitute for human evaluation such as data annotation and system assessment. Human perception and behaviour during human evaluation exhibit inherent variability due to diverse cognitive processes and subjective interpretations. This paper introduces a novel meta-learning framework that treats HAS as a zero-shot density estimation problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-30T20:54:59Z)
• Dynamic Human Evaluation for Relative Model Comparisons [8.843915018287476]
  We present a dynamic approach to measure the required number of human annotations when evaluating generated outputs in relative comparison settings. We propose an agent-based framework of human evaluation to assess multiple labelling strategies and methods to decide the better model in a simulation and a crowdsourcing case study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-15T11:32:13Z)

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.