Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Benchmark Hub

Retrieval + General Benchmark Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 62 papers are grouped in this benchmark page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Gold Questions. 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: 62 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 62 papers for Retrieval + General Benchmark Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, BrowseComp and metric focus on accuracy, recall. 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 (62/62); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • BrowseComp appears in 3.2% of hub papers (2/62); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 21% of hub papers (13/62); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • recall is reported in 9.7% of hub papers (6/62); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (14.5% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (1.6% 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 (48.4% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (4.8% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is usable but incomplete (21% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (14.5% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (1.6% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (48.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (4.8% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is usable but incomplete (21% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. MTRAG-UN: A Benchmark for Open Challenges in Multi-Turn RAG Conversations

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

  2. 2. Search-P1: Path-Centric Reward Shaping for Stable and Efficient Agentic RAG Training

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

  3. 3. Personalized Graph-Empowered Large Language Model for Proactive Information Access

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

  4. 4. FewMMBench: A Benchmark for Multimodal Few-Shot Learning

    Adds automatic metrics with demonstration data for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Prompt Architecture Determines Reasoning Quality: A Variable Isolation Study on the Car Wash Problem

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Retrieval Challenges in Low-Resource Public Service Information: A Case Study on Food Pantry Access

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Revisiting RAG Retrievers: An Information Theoretic Benchmark

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Revisiting Text Ranking in Deep Research

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 1.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (4.8% 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=55

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=55, right_only=6

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs human_eval

both=0, left_only=6, right_only=1

0 papers use both Simulation Env and Human Eval.

Benchmark Brief

BrowseComp

Coverage: 2 papers (3.2%)

2 papers (3.2%) mention BrowseComp.

Examples: Revisiting Text Ranking in Deep Research , Hybrid Deep Searcher: Scalable Parallel and Sequential Search Reasoning

Top Papers On This Benchmark

Other Benchmark Hubs