Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Benchmark Hub

Retrieval In CS.LG Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 13 papers are grouped in this benchmark page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Calibration. 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: 13 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 13 papers for Retrieval In CS.LG Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, MMLU and metric focus on accuracy, calibration. 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 (13/13); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MMLU appears in 7.7% of hub papers (1/13); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 38.5% of hub papers (5/13); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • calibration is reported in 7.7% of hub papers (1/13); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (7.7% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (7.7% 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 (69.2% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (15.4% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (7.7% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (7.7% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (69.2% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (15.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.1% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

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

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

  2. 2. 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.

  3. 3. 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.

  4. 4. A Benchmark for Deep Information Synthesis

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

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

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Adversarial Intent is a Latent Variable: Stateful Trust Inference for Securing Multimodal Agentic RAG

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Diagnosing LLM Reranker Behavior Under Fixed Evidence Pools

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Seeing to Generalize: How Visual Data Corrects Binding Shortcuts

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 7.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (15.4% 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=12

1 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

Benchmark Brief

MMLU

Coverage: 1 papers (7.7%)

1 papers (7.7%) mention MMLU.

Examples: Humanity's Last Exam

Metric Brief

calibration

Coverage: 1 papers (7.7%)

1 papers (7.7%) mention calibration.

Examples: Humanity's Last Exam

Metric Brief

context length

Coverage: 1 papers (7.7%)

1 papers (7.7%) mention context length.

Examples: Bayesian Attention Mechanism: A Probabilistic Framework for Positional Encoding and Context Length Extrapolation

Top Papers On This Benchmark

Other Benchmark Hubs