# What Is Missing: Interpretable Ratings for Large Language Model Outputs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.04429 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.04429/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in LLM preference optimization methods, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 25 of its 37 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 17 Feb 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [LLM preference optimization methods](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/llm-preference-optimization-methods/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 25 of 25)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.06347/) (2017)
- [DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.03300/) (2024)
- [Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.10084/) (2019)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1301.3781/) (2013)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [FlashAttention: Fast and Memory-Efficient Exact Attention with IO-Awareness](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.14135/) (2022)
- [QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14314/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Fine-Tuning Language Models from Human Preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.08593/) (2019)
- [Challenging BIG-Bench Tasks and Whether Chain-of-Thought Can Solve Them](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.09261/) (2022)
- [Self-Rewarding Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.10020/) (2024)
- [RLAIF vs. RLHF: Scaling Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback with AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00267/) (2023)
- [The Entropy Mechanism of Reinforcement Learning for Reasoning Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.22617/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models at Evaluating Instruction Following](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.07641/) (2023)
- [Direct Language Model Alignment from Online AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.04792/) (2024)
- [A Contrastive Framework for Neural Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.06417/) (2022)
- [Is Power-Seeking AI an Existential Risk?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.13353/) (2022)
- [Large Concept Models: Language Modeling in a Sentence Representation Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.08821/) (2024)
- [Text2Grad: Reinforcement Learning from Natural Language Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.22338/) (2025)
- [Position: The Most Expensive Part of an LLM should be its Training Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.12427/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Current Large Language Model (LLM) preference learning methods such as Proximal Policy Optimization and Direct Preference Optimization learn from direct rankings or numerical ratings of model outputs, these rankings are subjective, and a single numerical rating chosen directly by a judge is a poor proxy for the quality of natural language, we introduce the What Is Missing (WIM) rating system to produce rankings from natural-language feedback, WIM integrates into existing training pipelines, can be combined with other rating techniques, and can be used as input to any preference learning method without changing the learning algorithm, to compute a WIM rating, a human or LLM judge writes feedback describing what the model output is missing, we embed the output and the feedback with a sentence embedding model and compute the cosine similarity between the resulting vectors, we empirically observe that, compared to discrete numerical ratings, WIM yields fewer ties and larger rating deltas, which improves the availability of a learning signal in pairwise preference data, we use interpretable in the following limited sense: for each scalar rating, we can inspect the judge's missing-information text that produced it, enabling qualitative debugging of the preference labels.