mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

User-centric Subjective Leaderboard by Customizable Reward Modeling

arXiv 2508.09463 ↗First posted 13 Aug 2025cs.CLcited by 1

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

Existing benchmarks for large language models (LLMs) predominantely focus on assessing their capabilities through verifiable tasks. Such objective and static benchmarks offer limited utility for practical LLM selection, making it difficult for users to find suitable models for their individual needs. To bridge this gap, we present the first User-Centric Subjective Leaderboard (USL), which provides a preference-driven, dynamic ranking of LLMs across diverse real-world scenarios. Our work is built upon a thorough investigation of real human preference data, involving more than 10K subjective queries. Our investigation reveals significant diversity and contradictions in human preferences, which limit the effectiveness of state-of-the-art reward models. To address this, we introduce Customizable Reward Models (CRMs). With only 4B parameters, our CRM surpasses the performance of leading models such as GPT-4.1 and Gemini-2.5-pro, showing exceptional generalization capabilities across new topics and criteria. The USL, powered by CRMs, exhibits strong negative correlations to contradictory preferences.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 17 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Aug 2025.

Builds on

17 of 31 references.

Closest ancestors · 2

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Improving Context-Aware Preference Modeling for Language Models20 Jul
  2. 2024Chatbot Arena: An Open Platform for Evaluating LLMs by Human Preference7 Mar

Other references · 15

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  3. 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
  4. 2025Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilitiescited by 3,655
  5. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
  6. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
  7. 2025Qwen3 Embedding: Advancing Text Embedding and Reranking Through Foundation Modelscited by 1,175
  8. 2022BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedurecited by 779
  9. 2024JudgeBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM-based Judgescited by 294
  10. 2024FrontierMath: A Benchmark for Evaluating Advanced Mathematical Reasoning in AIcited by 227
  11. 2024WildBench: Benchmarking LLMs with Challenging Tasks from Real Users in the Wildcited by 211
  12. 2025Skywork-Reward-V2: Scaling Preference Data Curation via Human-AI Synergycited by 204
3 more
  1. 2024RM-Bench: Benchmarking Reward Models of Language Models with Subtlety and Stylecited by 168
  2. 2024How to Evaluate Reward Models for RLHFcited by 84
  3. 2024MixEval: Deriving Wisdom of the Crowd from LLM Benchmark Mixturescited by 73

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Personalized RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models with Human Aligned Personalization
  2. 2026VRM: Teaching Reward Models to Understand Authentic Human Preferences
  3. 2026Personalized Benchmarking: Evaluating LLMs by Individual Preferences
  4. 2025EVALUESTEER: Measuring Reward Model Steerability Towards Values and Preferences
  5. 2024RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models for Language Modeling
  6. 2026Beyond Binary Preferences: A Principled Framework for Reward Modeling with Ordinal Feedback
  7. 2026RMGAP: Benchmarking the Generalization of Reward Models across Diverse Preferences
  8. 2025LoRe: Personalizing LLMs via Low-Rank Reward Modeling