Explanation Quality Assessment as Ranking with Listwise Rewards
We reformulate explanation quality assessment as a ranking problem rather than a generation problem. Instead of optimizing models to produce a single "best" explanation token-by-token, we train reward models to discriminate among multiple candidate explanations and learn their relative quality. Concretely, we construct per-instance candidate sets with graded quality levels and train listwise and pairwise ranking models (ListNet, LambdaRank, RankNet) to preserve ordinal structure and avoid score compression typical of pointwise regression or binary preference objectives. We observe three findings: First, ranking losses consistently outperform regression on score separation across all domains tested. Second, the optimal ranking loss depends on data characteristics: listwise objectives excel with well-separated quality tiers, while pairwise methods are more robust to noisy natural annotations. Third, when trained on carefully curated and well-structured data, small encoder models can match models that are orders of magnitude larger, suggesting that data quality matters more than model scale. Finally, when used as rewards in policy optimization, ranking-based scores enable stable convergence in settings where regression-based rewards fail entirely. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/Tankiit/PPO_Learning_to_rank
Full article excerpt tap to expand
Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence arXiv:2604.24176 (cs) [Submitted on 27 Apr 2026] Title:Explanation Quality Assessment as Ranking with Listwise Rewards Authors:Thomas Bailleux, Tanmoy Mukherjee, Emmanuel Lonca, Pierre Marquis, Zied Bouraoui View a PDF of the paper titled Explanation Quality Assessment as Ranking with Listwise Rewards, by Thomas Bailleux and 4 other authors View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:We reformulate explanation quality assessment as a ranking problem rather than a generation problem. Instead of optimizing models to produce a single "best" explanation token-by-token, we train reward models to discriminate among multiple candidate explanations and learn their relative quality. Concretely, we construct per-instance candidate sets with graded quality levels and train listwise and pairwise ranking models (ListNet, LambdaRank, RankNet) to preserve ordinal structure and avoid score compression typical of pointwise regression or binary preference objectives. We observe three findings: First, ranking losses consistently outperform regression on score separation across all domains tested. Second, the optimal ranking loss depends on data characteristics: listwise objectives excel with well-separated quality tiers, while pairwise methods are more robust to noisy natural annotations. Third, when trained on carefully curated and well-structured data, small encoder models can match models that are orders of magnitude larger, suggesting that data quality matters more than model scale. Finally, when used as rewards in policy optimization, ranking-based scores enable stable convergence in settings where regression-based rewards fail entirely. Code and data are available at: this https URL Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) Cite as: arXiv:2604.24176 [cs.AI] (or arXiv:2604.24176v1 [cs.AI] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.24176 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) Submission history From: Zied Bouraoui [view email] [v1] Mon, 27 Apr 2026 08:35:30 UTC (772 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled Explanation Quality Assessment as Ranking with Listwise Rewards, by Thomas Bailleux and 4 other authorsView PDFHTML (experimental)TeX Source view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev | next > new | recent | 2026-04 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADSGoogle Scholar Semantic Scholar export BibTeX citation Loading... BibTeX formatted citation × loading... Data provided by: Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub (What is DagsHub?) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate (What is Replicate?) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower (What are Influence…
This excerpt is published under fair use for community discussion. Read the full article at arXiv.org.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from arXiv.org