Pairwise output ranking
Compare model responses side by side to identify which output better matches user intent, task requirements, and quality standards.
Collect structured rankings, scores and multilingual feedback for reward modeling, reinforcement learning and task-specific alignment.
Feedback workflows are designed around your model, task, user expectations, languages and target behavior.
Compare model responses side by side to identify which output better matches user intent, task requirements, and quality standards.
Rate AI outputs using structured scoring scales to capture differences in helpfulness, accuracy, coherence, safety, and overall response quality.
Collect detailed human feedback on model outputs to identify issues in tone, fluency, factuality, safety, and instruction following.
Evaluate model behavior against custom criteria designed for each use case, such as response safety, refusal quality, or domain accuracy.
Gather human feedback across languages, regions, and cultural contexts to improve model alignment for global users.
Prepare structured preference and feedback datasets that can support reward modeling, reinforcement learning, and model alignment workflows.
We turn task definitions into clear comparison rubrics and calibrated human judgments across languages and user contexts.
A calibrated workflow keeps rankings consistent, disagreements measurable and output structured for downstream use.
Align tasks, response qualities, scoring scales, policies and thresholds.
Qualify raters through examples, comparisons and feedback.
Collect judgments with consensus, audits and disagreement analysis.
Provide preference datasets with quality findings and documentation.
Share your model outputs, target behavior and evaluation criteria. We’ll propose a focused RLHF pilot.
Discuss an RLHF pilot ↗