Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Benchmark Hub

GSM8K Benchmark Papers (Last 300 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 12 papers are grouped in this benchmark page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: GSM8K. 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 Feb 26, 2026.

Papers: 12 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 12 papers for GSM8K Benchmark Papers (Last 300 Days). Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, human evaluation, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on GSM8K, HumanEval+ and metric focus on accuracy, cost. Use the grounded sections below to prioritize reproducible protocol choices, benchmark-matched comparisons, and judge-vs-human evaluation checks.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

Protocol Takeaways

Benchmark Interpretation

  • GSM8K appears in 100% of hub papers (12/12); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • HumanEval+ appears in 25% of hub papers (3/12); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 58.3% of hub papers (7/12); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 16.7% of hub papers (2/12); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 30% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (75% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (75% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

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

Papers with known annotation unit

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. InnerQ: Hardware-aware Tuning-free Quantization of KV Cache for Large Language Models

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  2. 2. Black-Box Reliability Certification for AI Agents via Self-Consistency Sampling and Conformal Calibration

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  3. 3. Pyramid MoA: A Probabilistic Framework for Cost-Optimized Anytime Inference

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  4. 4. Think$^{2}$: Grounded Metacognitive Reasoning in Large Language Models

    Include a human-eval paper to anchor calibration against automated judge settings.

  5. 5. SPQ: An Ensemble Technique for Large Language Model Compression

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. TFL: Targeted Bit-Flip Attack on Large Language Model

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Weight space Detection of Backdoors in LoRA Adapters

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Scaling Beyond Masked Diffusion Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 16.7% 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 Links

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=11

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=1, left_only=10, right_only=0

1 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

human_eval vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=1

0 papers use both Human Eval and Simulation Env.

Metric Brief

cost

Coverage: 2 papers (16.7%)

2 papers (16.7%) mention cost.

Examples: Pyramid MoA: A Probabilistic Framework for Cost-Optimized Anytime Inference , Diffusion Language Models Know the Answer Before Decoding

Top Papers On This Benchmark

Other Benchmark Hubs