Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Benchmark Hub

Retrieval + Long Horizon Benchmark Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 14 papers are grouped in this benchmark page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. 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: 14 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 14 papers for Retrieval + Long Horizon Benchmark Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, ALFWorld and metric focus on accuracy, f1. 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 (14/14); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • ALFWorld appears in 7.1% of hub papers (1/14); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 35.7% of hub papers (5/14); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • f1 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 (14.3% 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 (71.4% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (7.1% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is strong (35.7% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (14.3% 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 (71.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (7.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is strong (35.7% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. 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.

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

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

  3. 3. Learning to Reason for Multi-Step Retrieval of Personal Context in Personalized Question Answering

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

  4. 4. VIGiA: Instructional Video Guidance via Dialogue Reasoning and Retrieval

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. AgenticRAGTracer: A Hop-Aware Benchmark for Diagnosing Multi-Step Retrieval Reasoning in Agentic RAG

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. OmniRAG-Agent: Agentic Omnimodal Reasoning for Low-Resource Long Audio-Video Question Answering

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Embodied Task Planning via Graph-Informed Action Generation with Large Language Model

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Bridging Symbolic Control and Neural Reasoning in LLM Agents: Structured Cognitive Loop with a Governance Layer

    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 (7.1% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=12, right_only=2

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

ALFWorld

Coverage: 1 papers (7.1%)

1 papers (7.1%) mention ALFWorld.

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

Benchmark Brief

BrowseComp

Coverage: 1 papers (7.1%)

1 papers (7.1%) mention BrowseComp.

Examples: Hybrid Deep Searcher: Scalable Parallel and Sequential Search Reasoning

Top Papers On This Benchmark

Other Benchmark Hubs