Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Benchmark Hub

MMLU Benchmark Papers (Last 300 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 14 papers are grouped in this benchmark page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Calibration. 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 Feb 25, 2026.

Papers: 14 Last published: Feb 25, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 14 papers for MMLU Benchmark Papers (Last 300 Days). Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, with frequent benchmark focus on MMLU, MMLU-Pro 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

  • MMLU appears in 100% of hub papers (14/14); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MMLU-Pro appears in 21.4% of hub papers (3/14); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 28.6% of hub papers (4/14); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 21.4% of hub papers (3/14); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (7.1% vs 45% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.4% 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 (57.1% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is usable but incomplete (28.6% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (7.1% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.4% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (57.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

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

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is usable but incomplete (28.6% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Bridging Latent Reasoning and Target-Language Generation via Retrieval-Transition Heads

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

  2. 2. Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference

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

  3. 3. D-COT: Disciplined Chain-of-Thought Learning for Efficient Reasoning in Small Language Models

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

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

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. ID-LoRA: Efficient Low-Rank Adaptation Inspired by Matrix Interpolative Decomposition

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. KNIGHT: Knowledge Graph-Driven Multiple-Choice Question Generation with Adaptive Hardness Calibration

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Same Meaning, Different Scores: Lexical and Syntactic Sensitivity in LLM Evaluation

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. RoPE-LIME: RoPE-Space Locality + Sparse-K Sampling for Efficient LLM Attribution

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Rater population is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Cross-page comparisons should be benchmark- and metric-matched to avoid protocol confounding.

Research Utility Links

Metric Brief

calibration

Coverage: 1 papers (7.1%)

1 papers (7.1%) mention calibration.

Examples: KNIGHT: Knowledge Graph-Driven Multiple-Choice Question Generation with Adaptive Hardness Calibration

Top Papers On This Benchmark

Other Benchmark Hubs