Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Benchmark Hub

APPS + Automatic Metrics Benchmark Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 17, 2026). 2 papers are grouped in this benchmark page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 17, 2026). 2 papers are grouped in this benchmark page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Frequently cited benchmark: APPS. Common metric signal: cost. Use this page to compare protocol setup, judge behavior, and labeling design decisions before running new eval experiments. Newest paper in this set is from Feb 26, 2026.

Papers: 2 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS

Researcher Quick Triage

Use this page for benchmark-matched method comparisons and eval protocol selection. Quality band: Developing .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

2 / 2 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

2

Papers with explicit benchmark + metric + eval mode fields.

Quality Controls

0.0%

0 papers report calibration/adjudication/IAA controls.

  • 2 papers explicitly name benchmark datasets in the sampled set.
  • 2 papers report at least one metric term in metadata extraction.
  • Start with the ranked shortlist below before reading all papers.

Primary action: Use this page to map benchmark mentions first; wait for stronger metric/QC coverage before strict comparisons.

Why This Matters (Expanded)

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • automatic metrics appears in 100% of papers in this hub.
  • APPS is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
  • long-horizon tasks appears in 50% of papers, indicating agentic evaluation demand.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways

  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both cost and success rate.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • APPS appears in 100% of hub papers (2/2); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • cost is reported in 50% of hub papers (1/2); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • success rate is reported in 50% of hub papers (1/2); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Start Here (Benchmark-Matched First 6)

Ranked by protocol completeness so you can quickly find papers suitable for comparison studies.

Protocol Matrix (Top 10)

Compare protocol ingredients quickly before deep-reading full papers.

Paper Eval Modes Human Feedback Metrics Quality Controls
RLShield: Practical Multi-Agent RL for Financial Cyber Defense with Attack-Surface MDPs and Real-Time Response Orchestration

Feb 26, 2026

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Not reported
The Tool Decathlon: Benchmarking Language Agents for Diverse, Realistic, and Long-Horizon Task Execution

Oct 29, 2025

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Success rate Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Most papers provide measurable evaluation context (100% benchmarks, 100% metrics).
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 100% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (0% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both cost and success rate.

Recommended Queries

Benchmark Slice: APPSMetric Slice: costRecent High-Signal Papers
Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (2)

Human Feedback Mix

Top Benchmarks

  • APPS (2)

Top Metrics

  • Cost (1)
  • Success rate (1)

Top Papers On This Benchmark

Related Benchmark Hubs

APPS + General Benchmark Papers APPS In CS.AI Papers APPS In CS.CL Papers APPS Benchmark Papers Coding Evaluation Suite Benchmark Papers In CS.CL Coding Evaluation Suite Benchmark Papers DROP Benchmark Papers (Last 45 Days) (11) DROP Benchmark Papers (Last 60 Days) (11) DROP Benchmark Papers (Last 75 Days) (11) Reasoning & Math Suite Benchmark Papers + Automatic Metrics (10) Reasoning & Math Suite Benchmark Papers (23) Reasoning & Math Suite Benchmark Papers In CS.CL (21) Reasoning & Math Suite Benchmark Papers In CS.AI (15) Coding Evaluation Suite Benchmark Papers (11) Coding Evaluation Suite Benchmark Papers In CS.CL (10) SWE-Bench Ecosystem Benchmark Papers (13) SWE-Bench Ecosystem Benchmark Papers In CS.CL (11)

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.

Post a Job Get a Quote