Recent studies comparing AI-generated and human-authored literary texts have produced conflicting results: some suggest AI already surpasses human quality, while others argue it still falls short. We start from the hypothesis that such divergences can be largely explained by genuine differences in how readers interpret and value literature, rather than by an intrinsic quality of the texts evaluated. Using five public datasets (1,471 stories, 101 annotators including critics, students, and lay readers), we (i) extract 17 reference-less textual features (e.g., coherence, emotional variance, average sentence length...); (ii) model individual reader preferences, deriving feature importance vectors that reflect their textual priorities; and (iii) analyze these vectors in a shared "preference space". Reader vectors cluster into two profiles: 'surface-focused readers' (mainly non-experts), who prioritize readability and textual richness; and 'holistic readers' (mainly experts), who value thematic development, rhetorical variety, and sentiment dynamics. Our results quantitatively explain how measurements of literary quality are a function of how text features align with each reader's preferences. These findings advocate for reader-sensitive evaluation frameworks in the field of creative text generation.

Online AI Feedback (OAIF) presents a promising alternative to Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) by utilizing online AI preference in aligning language models (LLMs). However, the straightforward replacement of humans with AI deprives LLMs from learning more fine-grained AI supervision beyond binary signals. In this paper, we propose Direct Advantage Regression (DAR), a simple alignment algorithm using online AI reward to optimize policy improvement through weighted supervised fine-tuning. As an RL-free approach, DAR maintains theoretical consistency with online RLHF pipelines while significantly reducing implementation complexity and improving learning efficiency. Our empirical results underscore that AI reward is a better form of AI supervision consistently achieving higher human-AI agreement as opposed to AI preference. Additionally, evaluations using GPT-4-Turbo and MT-bench show that DAR outperforms both OAIF and online RLHF baselines.

Matching job descriptions (JDs) with suitable talent requires models capable of understanding not only textual similarities between JDs and candidate resumes but also contextual factors such as geographical location and academic seniority. To address this challenge, we propose a two-stage training framework for large language models (LLMs). In the first stage, a contrastive learning approach is used to train the model on a dataset constructed from real-world matching rules, such as geographical alignment and research area overlap. While effective, this model primarily learns patterns that defined by the matching rules. In the second stage, we introduce a novel preference-based fine-tuning method inspired by Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), termed Rank Preference Optimization (RankPO), to align the model with AI-curated pairwise preferences emphasizing textual understanding. Our experiments show that while the first-stage model achieves strong performance on rule-based data (nDCG@20 = 0.706), it lacks robust textual understanding (alignment with AI annotations = 0.46). By fine-tuning with RankPO, we achieve a balanced model that retains relatively good performance in the original tasks while significantly improving the alignment with AI preferences. The code and data are available at https://github.com/yflyzhang/RankPO.

Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) has the advantages of shorter annotation cycles and lower costs over Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), making it highly efficient during the rapid strategy iteration periods of large language model (LLM) training. Using ChatGPT as a labeler to provide feedback on open-domain prompts in RLAIF training, we observe an increase in human evaluators' preference win ratio for model responses, but a decrease in evaluators' satisfaction rate. Analysis suggests that the decrease in satisfaction rate is mainly due to some responses becoming less helpful, particularly in terms of correctness and truthfulness, highlighting practical limitations of basic RLAIF. In this paper, we propose Hybrid Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (HRLAIF). This method enhances the accuracy of AI annotations for responses, making the model's helpfulness more robust in training process. Additionally, it employs AI for Red Teaming, further improving the model's harmlessness. Human evaluation results show that HRLAIF inherits the ability of RLAIF to enhance human preference for outcomes at a low cost while also improving the satisfaction rate of responses. Compared to the policy model before Reinforcement Learning (RL), it achieves an increase of 2.08\% in satisfaction rate, effectively addressing the issue of a decrease of 4.58\% in satisfaction rate after basic RLAIF.