Q001 — RLHF Alternatives — Self-Audit¶
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
| Criterion | Rating |
|---|---|
| Were inclusion/exclusion criteria pre-specified? | Low risk |
| Were criteria consistently applied? | Low risk |
| Were criteria appropriate for the question? | Low risk |
Notes: Sources were selected based on: (1) primary research papers at peer-reviewed venues, (2) direct relevance to RLHF alternatives, (3) production deployment evidence. Blog posts and tutorials were rejected unless they provided unique analytical value. Criteria were applied consistently across all searches.
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
| Criterion | Rating |
|---|---|
| Were multiple sources/databases searched? | Low risk |
| Were search terms comprehensive? | Low risk |
| Were no-result searches documented? | Low risk |
Notes: Five focused searches covered the landscape from multiple angles: overview, DPO specifically, GRPO/RLVR, Constitutional AI/RLAIF, and DPO variants (KTO/ORPO/SimPO). Primary papers were accessed directly via arXiv. One limitation: the search was conducted via web search only, not academic databases (Semantic Scholar, Google Scholar) directly.
Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶
| Criterion | Rating |
|---|---|
| Were all sources scored on the same dimensions? | Low risk |
| Were ratings justified with rationale? | Low risk |
| Was the same rigor applied to supporting and contradicting sources? | Low risk |
Notes: All sources received the same 8-dimension scoring (reliability, relevance, 6 bias domains). The Apple DPO counterpoint (contradicting H1's strong form) was given full treatment and featured prominently in the assessment.
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶
| Criterion | Rating |
|---|---|
| Were all hypotheses given fair treatment? | Low risk |
| Were contradictions highlighted? | Low risk |
| Was the ACH matrix applied consistently? | Low risk |
Notes: All three hypotheses received full evidence evaluation. H2 (no viable alternatives) was not strawmanned — it was given the Apple DPO finding as supporting evidence before being eliminated on the weight of contradicting evidence.
Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶
| Source | Extract Accurate | Assessment Consistent | Discrepancy |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC02 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC03 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC04 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC05 | Yes | Minor | SRC05 mentions "auditing and disclosure standards" as complementary — this was noted but could have been more prominent |
| SRC06 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC07 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC08 | Yes | Yes | None |
Discrepancy count: 0 material, 1 minor
Corrections: None required.
Unresolved flags: SRC05's emphasis on non-technical solutions (auditing, disclosure) could have been given more weight in the assessment.
Overall Assessment¶
Rating: Low risk
The research followed the methodology systematically. The main risk is an over-emphasis on technical alternatives at the expense of process/governance alternatives mentioned in SRC05. The source collection is weighted toward primary research papers, which is appropriate for a technical question.
Researcher Bias Check¶
As an AI system trained with RLHF-related methods, there is inherent familiarity with these techniques that could bias toward presenting them as well-understood. Mitigated by: including counterpoints (Apple DPO finding), noting commercial interests in source COI assessments, and distinguishing between benchmark results and production deployment.