Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Benchmark Hub

Retrieval + Coding Benchmark Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 36 papers are grouped in this benchmark page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequently cited benchmark: Retrieval. 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: 36 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 36 papers for Retrieval + Coding Benchmark Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, ALFWorld and metric focus on accuracy, coherence. 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

  • Retrieval appears in 100% of hub papers (36/36); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • ALFWorld appears in 2.8% of hub papers (1/36); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 33.3% of hub papers (12/36); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • coherence is reported in 11.1% of hub papers (4/36); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (0% 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 (5.6% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (0% 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 (5.6% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. AgentDropoutV2: Optimizing Information Flow in Multi-Agent Systems via Test-Time Rectify-or-Reject Pruning

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

  2. 2. MoDora: Tree-Based Semi-Structured Document Analysis System

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

  3. 3. Vectorizing the Trie: Efficient Constrained Decoding for LLM-based Generative Retrieval on Accelerators

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

  4. 4. A Benchmark for Deep Information Synthesis

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

  5. 5. Strategy Executability in Mathematical Reasoning: Leveraging Human-Model Differences for Effective Guidance

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. DySCO: Dynamic Attention-Scaling Decoding for Long-Context LMs

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Structurally Aligned Subtask-Level Memory for Software Engineering Agents

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Multi-Vector Index Compression in Any Modality

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (5.6% 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=1, left_only=0, right_only=33

1 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=1, left_only=33, right_only=2

1 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs human_eval

both=0, left_only=3, right_only=1

0 papers use both Simulation Env and Human Eval.

Benchmark Brief

ALFWorld

Coverage: 1 papers (2.8%)

1 papers (2.8%) mention ALFWorld.

Examples: Embodied Task Planning via Graph-Informed Action Generation with Large Language Model

Benchmark Brief

Financebench

Coverage: 1 papers (2.8%)

1 papers (2.8%) mention Financebench.

Examples: Decomposing Retrieval Failures in RAG for Long-Document Financial Question Answering

Top Papers On This Benchmark

Other Benchmark Hubs