Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Benchmark Hub

GPQA Or BFCL Benchmark Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Jun 30, 2026). 37 papers are grouped in this benchmark page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Jun 30, 2026). 37 papers are grouped in this benchmark page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequently cited benchmark: GPQA. 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 Apr 2, 2026.

Papers: 37 Last published: Apr 2, 2026 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%

37 / 37 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

9

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.
  • 9 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

  • 2.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by demonstration data.
  • automatic metrics appears in 24.3% of papers in this hub.
  • GPQA 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 trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • GPQA appears in 64.9% of hub papers (24/37); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • BFCL appears in 35.1% of hub papers (13/37); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 37.8% of hub papers (14/37); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 16.2% of hub papers (6/37); 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
Brief Is Better: Non-Monotonic Chain-of-Thought Budget Effects in Function-Calling Language Agents

Apr 2, 2026

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Top-b: Entropic Regulation of Relative Probability Bands in Autoregressive Language Processes

Mar 15, 2026

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy 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
SkillX: Automatically Constructing Skill Knowledge Bases for Agents

Apr 6, 2026

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Task success Not reported
DeepPrune: Parallel Scaling without Inter-trace Redundancy

Oct 9, 2025

 Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Auroc Not reported
The Bitter Lesson of Diffusion Language Models for Agentic Workflows: A Comprehensive Reality Check

Jan 19, 2026

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Precision, Latency Not reported
SIGMA: Search-Augmented On-Demand Knowledge Integration for Agentic Mathematical Reasoning

Oct 31, 2025

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Failure Makes the Agent Stronger: Enhancing Accuracy through Structured Reflection for Reliable Tool Interactions

Sep 23, 2025

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Schema for In-Context Learning

Oct 14, 2025

 Not reported Demonstrations Not reported Not reported
Accelerated Test-Time Scaling with Model-Free Speculative Sampling

Jun 5, 2025

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Latency Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (2.7% 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 (67.6% 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 (10.8% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Most papers provide measurable evaluation context (100% benchmarks, 67.6% metrics).

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 (10.8% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Stratify by benchmark (GPQA vs BFCL) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

LLM-as-Judge ProtocolsBenchmark Slice: GPQAMetric Slice: accuracyRecent 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 (9)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Human Feedback Mix

  • Demonstrations (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • GPQA (24)
  • BFCL (13)
  • AIME (11)
  • MMLU (7)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (14)
  • Cost (6)
  • Latency (2)
  • Spearman (2)

Top Papers On This Benchmark

Related Benchmark Hubs

DROP Or GPQA Or BFCL Benchmark Papers GPQA Benchmark Papers GPQA In CS.CL Papers GPQA Benchmark Papers (Last 365 Days) GPQA Benchmark Papers (Last 300 Days) GPQA Or ToolBench Benchmark Papers HumanEval+ Or BFCL Benchmark Papers (21) MATH-500 Or BFCL Benchmark Papers (25) GPQA Or HumanEval+ Benchmark Papers (22) MATH-500 Or GPQA Benchmark Papers (25) MATH-500 Or HumanEval+ Benchmark Papers (24) MATH-500 Benchmark Papers (15) MMLU Or AIME Or AlpacaEval Benchmark Papers (60) MMLU Or AIME Or BFCL Benchmark Papers (59) GSM8K Or MMLU Or AIME Benchmark Papers (72) MMLU Or AIME Or HotpotQA Benchmark Papers (62) MMLU Or AIME Or HumanEval+ Benchmark Papers (57)