# Thesis Proposal: Toward a Human-Centered and Perspective-Aware Framework for Reproducible ML Evaluation and AI Alignment

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.30842 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.30842/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation.
- Builds on 41 of its 83 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation / [Human values and AI feedback alignment](https://mlsanity.com/alignment/human-values-and-ai-feedback-alignment/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 41)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Deep reinforcement learning from human preferences](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.03741/) (2017)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Character-level Convolutional Networks for Text Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1509.01626/) (2015)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [s1: Simple test-time scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.19393/) (2025)
- [Large Language Models Are Human-Level Prompt Engineers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.01910/) (2022)
- [Are NLP Models really able to Solve Simple Math Word Problems?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2103.07191/) (2021)
- [Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17548/) (2023)
- [Automatic Prompt Optimization with "Gradient Descent" and Beam Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.03495/) (2023)
- [Program Induction by Rationale Generation : Learning to Solve and Explain Algebraic Word Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.04146/) (2017)
- [Self-critiquing models for assisting human evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.05802/) (2022)
- [RLPrompt: Optimizing Discrete Text Prompts with Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.12548/) (2022)
- [Dealing with Disagreements: Looking Beyond the Majority Vote in Subjective Annotations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.05719/) (2021)
- [Annotators with Attitudes: How Annotator Beliefs And Identities Bias Toxic Language Detection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.07997/) (2021)
- [Re3: Generating Longer Stories With Recursive Reprompting and Revision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.06774/) (2022)
- [Toward a Perspectivist Turn in Ground Truthing for Predictive Computing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.04270/) (2021)
- [On Releasing Annotator-Level Labels and Information in Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2110.05699/) (2021)
- [RL4F: Generating Natural Language Feedback with Reinforcement Learning for Repairing Model Outputs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.08844/) (2023)
- [DICES Dataset: Diversity in Conversational AI Evaluation for Safety](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.11247/) (2023)
- [A Step Toward Quantifying Independently Reproducible Machine Learning Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.06674/) (2019)
- [Agreeing to Disagree: Annotating Offensive Language Datasets with Annotators' Disagreement](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.13563/) (2021)
- [Is Your Toxicity My Toxicity? Exploring the Impact of Rater Identity on Toxicity Annotation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.00501/) (2022)
- [Designing Toxic Content Classification for a Diversity of Perspectives](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.04511/) (2021)
- [Sampling-Efficient Test-Time Scaling: Self-Estimating the Best-of-N Sampling in Early Decoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.01422/) (2025)
- [Beyond prompt brittleness: Evaluating the reliability and consistency of political worldviews in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17649/) (2024)
- [When Do Annotator Demographics Matter? Measuring the Influence of Annotator Demographics with the POPQUORN Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.06826/) (2023)
- [ConvAbuse: Data, Analysis, and Benchmarks for Nuanced Abuse Detection in Conversational AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.09483/) (2021)
- [EvoAgentX: An Automated Framework for Evolving Agentic Workflows](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.03616/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Humans play a vital role at every stage of AI development, from data collection and curation to model development and evaluation. However, humans often disagree with each other and sometimes with themselves over time. It is essential to take disagreement into account when building human-centered AI systems, especially in domains where it is prevalent, such as AI safety, content moderation, or sentiment analysis. Disagreement often arises from subjective human opinion and can vary with one's identity, beliefs, and social environment. Despite this, current LLM evaluation approaches frequently rely on aggregating labels (often via plurality voting) to represent consensus, thereby obscuring minority perspectives. By failing to account for human disagreement, these evaluation methods contribute to the reproducibility crisis in AI. Human feedback is also crucial for ensuring that AI systems align with human values. For these systems to be trustworthy, it is critical to ensure that they reflect diverse human values and perspectives. In this thesis proposal, we present a human-centered and perspective-aware framework for reproducible ML evaluation and AI alignment.