So much of our work comes down to one unglamorous question: how do you teach a model to be reliable, and how would you know if you hadn't? That's this job. You'd build the reward models and judges that decide what "good" means during training. You'd train models to be honest about what they did and didn't do. And you'd build the evaluations that catch them when they aren't.
You'd be inside our RL training, not on a separate team reviewing it afterwards. What you build goes straight into the reward.
What you'll work on
- Reward models and LLM judges for work a unit test can't grade: rubric-based, generative, process-level. Then checking them against careful human judgment, because a judge nobody has checked is just another model with opinions.
- Turning the behaviors that matter in regulated work into training signal. Following policy and instructions when it's inconvenient. Asking when something is ambiguous. Stopping instead of guessing. Reporting what a tool actually returned. Knowing how sure to be.
- Hunting reward hacking and specification gaming, and studying how our judges fail so we can fix them.
- Alignment experiments inside RL post-training (preference data, synthetic critiques, principle-based feedback), with an honest account of what they cost in capability and efficiency.
- Safety and reliability evals that still mean something outside the lab. We do evaluation for enterprises and public-sector clients, so there are real cases to draw on.
