Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Automatic Metrics + Coding + Pairwise Preference Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 17 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequently cited benchmark: Charteditbench. 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: 17 Last published: Feb 25, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Automatic MetricsCodingPairwise Preference

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 17 papers for Automatic Metrics + Coding + Pairwise Preference Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, with frequent benchmark focus on Charteditbench, LiveCodeBench and metric focus on accuracy, auc. 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

  • Charteditbench appears in 5.9% of hub papers (1/17); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • LiveCodeBench appears in 5.9% of hub papers (1/17); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 17.6% of hub papers (3/17); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • auc is reported in 5.9% of hub papers (1/17); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Maintain strength on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is strong (100% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (17.6% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (41.2% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (17.6% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is strong (41.2% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is strong (100% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (17.6% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (41.2% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (17.6% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is strong (41.2% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Duel-Evolve: Reward-Free Test-Time Scaling via LLM Self-Preferences

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

  2. 2. HiSAC: Hierarchical Sparse Activation Compression for Ultra-long Sequence Modeling in Recommenders

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

  3. 3. gencat: Generative computerized adaptive testing

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

  4. 4. Hierarchical Reward Design from Language: Enhancing Alignment of Agent Behavior with Human Specifications

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Persona2Web: Benchmarking Personalized Web Agents for Contextual Reasoning with User History

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. ChartEditBench: Evaluating Grounded Multi-Turn Chart Editing in Multimodal Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Rethinking Metrics for Lexical Semantic Change Detection

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. The Vision Wormhole: Latent-Space Communication in Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Systems

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (17.6% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

Benchmark Brief

Charteditbench

Coverage: 1 papers (5.9%)

1 papers (5.9%) mention Charteditbench.

Examples: ChartEditBench: Evaluating Grounded Multi-Turn Chart Editing in Multimodal Language Models

Benchmark Brief

LiveCodeBench

Coverage: 1 papers (5.9%)

1 papers (5.9%) mention LiveCodeBench.

Examples: Duel-Evolve: Reward-Free Test-Time Scaling via LLM Self-Preferences

Benchmark Brief

Mathbench

Coverage: 1 papers (5.9%)

1 papers (5.9%) mention Mathbench.

Examples: Duel-Evolve: Reward-Free Test-Time Scaling via LLM Self-Preferences

Metric Brief

auc

Coverage: 1 papers (5.9%)

1 papers (5.9%) mention auc.

Examples: gencat: Generative computerized adaptive testing

Metric Brief

cost

Coverage: 1 papers (5.9%)

1 papers (5.9%) mention cost.

Examples: HiSAC: Hierarchical Sparse Activation Compression for Ultra-long Sequence Modeling in Recommenders

Top Papers

Related Hubs