Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Benchmark Hub

AIME Or MMLU Benchmark Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 21, 2026). 20 papers are grouped in this benchmark page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 21, 2026). 20 papers are grouped in this benchmark page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequently cited benchmark: MMLU. Common metric signal: accuracy. 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 Oct 5, 2025.

Papers: 20 Last published: Oct 5, 2025 Global RSS

Researcher Quick Triage

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

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

20 / 20 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

7

Papers with explicit benchmark + metric + eval mode fields.

Quality Controls

0.0%

0 papers report calibration/adjudication/IAA controls.

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

Primary action: Start with the top 2 benchmark-matched papers, then compare evaluation modes in the protocol matrix.

Why This Matters (Expanded)

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 70% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 35% of papers in this hub.
  • MMLU is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways

  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Rater context is mostly unspecified rater pools, and annotation is commonly pairwise annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • MMLU appears in 60% of hub papers (6/20); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • AIME appears in 40% of hub papers (4/20); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 50% of hub papers (5/20); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 30% of hub papers (3/20); 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
$V_1$: Unifying Generation and Self-Verification for Parallel Reasoners

Mar 4, 2026

Automatic Metrics Pairwise Preference Pass@1 Not reported
Don't Pass@k: A Bayesian Framework for Large Language Model Evaluation

Oct 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env Rubric Rating Accuracy, Pass@k Not reported
How Reliable is Language Model Micro-Benchmarking?

Oct 9, 2025

Automatic Metrics Pairwise Preference Accuracy, Cost Not reported
Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback

Jun 3, 2025

Automatic Metrics Critique Edit Pass@1 Not reported
Learning When to Sample: Confidence-Aware Self-Consistency for Efficient LLM Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Mar 9, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Cost Not reported
D-COT: Disciplined Chain-of-Thought Learning for Efficient Reasoning in Small Language Models

Feb 25, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference

Feb 25, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Cost Not reported
Think$^{2}$: Grounded Metacognitive Reasoning in Large Language Models

Feb 21, 2026

Human Eval Pairwise Preference Not reported Not reported
Inducing Epistemological Humility in Large Language Models: A Targeted SFT Approach to Reducing Hallucination

Mar 18, 2026

Not reported Pairwise Preference Not reported Not reported
Long Grounded Thoughts: Synthesizing Visual Problems and Reasoning Chains at Scale

Nov 7, 2025

Not reported Pairwise Preference Not reported Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (70% 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 (70% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

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

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is strong (50% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (70% of papers).
  • Most papers provide measurable evaluation context (100% benchmarks, 70% metrics).
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 30% of papers.

Known Gaps

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

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Stratify by benchmark (MMLU vs AIME) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

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 (7)
  • Human Eval (1)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Human Feedback Mix

  • Pairwise Preference (5)
  • Critique Edit (1)
  • Rubric Rating (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • MMLU (6)
  • AIME (4)
  • MMLU Pro (3)
  • BBH (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (5)
  • Cost (3)
  • Pass@1 (2)
  • Inference cost (1)

Top Papers On This Benchmark

Related Benchmark Hubs

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