@inproceedings{cook-etal-2026-check,
    title = "Check Your Work: Structured Checklist Feedback for Improving Large Language Models",
    author = "Cook, Jonathan  and
      Rockt{\textbackslash}{''}aschel, Tim  and
      Foerster, Jakob Nicolaus  and
      Aumiller, Dennis  and
      Wang, Alex",
    editor = "Liakata, Maria  and
      Moreira, Viviane P.  and
      Zhang, Jiajun  and
      Jurgens, David",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the {A}ssociation for {C}omputational {L}inguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)",
    month = jul,
    year = "2026",
    address = "San Diego, California, United States",
    publisher = "Association for Computational Linguistics",
    url = "https://preview.aclanthology.org/ingest-acl/2026.acl-long.759/",
    pages = "16649--16688",
    ISBN = "979-8-89176-390-6",
    abstract = "Much recent progress in Large Language Model (LLM) performance has been driven by verifiable feedback in deterministic domains like mathematics and code. However, scaling reinforcement learning (RL) and test-time compute in domains for which strict verification is infeasible remains a challenge. A common approach is to use an LLM-as-judge, which often relies on opaque, monolithic scores. In this work, we propose that AI feedback is most effective when decomposed into granular, prompt-specific checklists. To transform these checklists into a scalar reward, we introduce DIVA: DIscriminative VAriance weighting, a dynamic aggregation scheme that prioritises checklist items based on their ability to distinguish quality across a candidate pool. This ensures the reward signal focuses on the most salient criteria for a given prompt and response group, rather than being diluted by trivial or redundant constraints. Our approach yields an 11.8{\%} win-rate improvement on AlpacaEval 2.0 using Qwen3-8B, outperforming holistic reward models and existing checklist baselines. Beyond training, we show that these checklists serve as a structured policy improvement operator at inference time - by using the model{'}s own checklist evaluation as localised contextual feedback, the model can iteratively refine its output. This self-correction mechanism outperforms free-form sequential self-correction, offering a unified and interpretable framework for scaling both training-time and test-time performance in domains lacking strict verifiers."
}