Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Benchmark Hub

MATH-500 Or HumanEval+ Benchmark Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Jun 30, 2026). 43 papers are grouped in this benchmark page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Jun 30, 2026). 43 papers are grouped in this benchmark page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequently cited benchmark: MATH-500. 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 Jun 24, 2026.

Papers: 43 Last published: Jun 24, 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%

43 / 43 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

  • 7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 20.9% of papers in this hub.
  • MATH-500 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

  • MATH-500 appears in 60.5% of hub papers (26/43); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • HumanEval+ appears in 44.2% of hub papers (19/43); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 44.2% of hub papers (19/43); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 23.3% of hub papers (10/43); 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
Cliff Tokens: Identifying Single-Token Failure Triggers in LLM Mathematical Reasoning

Jun 24, 2026

 Automatic Metrics Pairwise Preference Accuracy, Pass@64 Not reported
Learning How to Use Tools, Not Just When: Pattern-Aware Tool-Integrated Reasoning

Sep 27, 2025

 Automatic Metrics Pairwise Preference Accuracy Not reported
Blockwise Policy-Drift Gating for On-Policy Distillation

Jun 23, 2026

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Pass@8 Not reported
S0 Tuning: Zero-Overhead Adaptation of Hybrid Recurrent-Attention Models

Apr 1, 2026

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Pass@1, Cost Not reported
Cache What Lasts: Token Retention for Memory-Bounded KV Cache in LLMs

Dec 3, 2025

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

Oct 9, 2025

 Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Auroc Not reported
Cost-Effective Communication: An Auction-based Method for Language Agent Interaction

Nov 17, 2025

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Pass@1, Cost Not reported
SIGMA: Search-Augmented On-Demand Knowledge Integration for Agentic Mathematical Reasoning

Oct 31, 2025

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
ReCode: Reinforcing Code Generation with Reasoning-Process Rewards

Aug 7, 2025

 Not reported Pairwise Preference Not reported Not reported
Towards Hierarchical Multi-Step Reward Models for Enhanced Reasoning in Large Language Models

Mar 16, 2025

 Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost, Coherence Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (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 (76.7% 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 (7% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Most papers provide measurable evaluation context (100% benchmarks, 76.7% 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 (7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Stratify by benchmark (MATH-500 vs HumanEval+) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

LLM-as-Judge ProtocolsBenchmark Slice: MATH-500Metric 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

  • Pairwise Preference (3)

Top Benchmarks

  • MATH 500 (26)
  • HumanEval+ (19)
  • GSM8K (15)
  • AIME (10)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (19)
  • Cost (10)
  • Exact match (3)
  • Latency (3)

Top Papers On This Benchmark

Related Benchmark Hubs

DROP Or MATH-500 Or HumanEval+ Benchmark Papers MATH-500 Benchmark Papers MATH-500 In CS.CL Papers MATH-500 Benchmark Papers (Last 365 Days) MATH-500 Benchmark Papers (Last 300 Days) GSM8K Or MATH-500 Benchmark Papers GPQA Or BFCL Benchmark Papers (23) 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 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)