Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Automatic Metrics + Coding (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 17, 2026). 26 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 17, 2026). 26 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: APPS. 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 Mar 29, 2026.

Papers: 26 Last published: Mar 29, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Automatic MetricsCodingLast 30d

Researcher Quick Triage

This hub is best used for protocol triage and replication planning from abstract-level evidence. Quality band: Medium .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

26 / 26 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

9

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

1

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 9 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 1 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 2 papers report explicit quality controls (calibration/adjudication/IAA).

Primary action: Start with the top 2 papers in “Start Here”, then validate assumptions in the protocol matrix.

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 26.9% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 100% of papers in this hub.
  • APPS is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • 1 sampled papers report both human evaluation and LLM-as-judge, supporting direct agreement checks.
  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (3.8% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly multi-dimensional rubrics; use this to scope replication staffing.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • APPS appears in 3.8% of hub papers (1/26); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • BFCL appears in 3.8% of hub papers (1/26); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 50% of hub papers (13/26); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 34.6% of hub papers (9/26); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (26.9% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

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

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (34.6% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.5% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (30.8% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 65.4% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 7.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.5% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (APPS vs BFCL) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.
Recommended Queries (Expanded)

Recommended Queries

Start with These 3

Use these when you need one protocol anchor, one benchmark anchor, and one recent comparison point before reading the wider hub.

Start Here (Best First 6)

Ranked for protocol completeness (human signal, benchmark + metric anchors, quality controls, and judge/human overlap).

Protocol Matrix (Top 12)

Use this to quickly compare protocol ingredients instead of scanning long prose.

Paper HF Signal Eval Modes Benchmarks Metrics QC
Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Presentation and Hallucination in AI-written Papers

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Paperwrite Bench Not Reported Not Reported
Do Phone-Use Agents Respect Your Privacy?

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics APPS , Myphonebench Task success Not Reported
CausalRM: Causal-Theoretic Reward Modeling for RLHF from Observational User Feedbacks

Mar 19, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Harmbench Not Reported Not Reported
Grounding Arabic LLMs in the Doha Historical Dictionary: Retrieval-Augmented Understanding of Quran and Hadith

Mar 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Human Eval , Llm As Judge Not Reported Accuracy , Kappa Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
PRBench: End-to-end Paper Reproduction in Physics Research

Mar 29, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics , Simulation Env Not Reported Accuracy , Success rate Not Reported
QED-Nano: Teaching a Tiny Model to Prove Hard Theorems

Apr 6, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Inference cost Not Reported
LLM-Powered Workflow Optimization for Multidisciplinary Software Development: An Automotive Industry Case Study

Mar 22, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported F1 Not Reported
S0 Tuning: Zero-Overhead Adaptation of Hybrid Recurrent-Attention Models

Apr 1, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics MATH 500 , GSM8K Pass@1 , Inference cost Not Reported
IslamicMMLU: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Islamic Knowledge

Mar 24, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
SkillX: Automatically Constructing Skill Knowledge Bases for Agents

Apr 6, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics BFCL Task success Not Reported
Agent Q-Mix: Selecting the Right Action for LLM Multi-Agent Systems through Reinforcement Learning

Apr 1, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics HLE Accuracy , Token cost Not Reported
LRC-WeatherNet: LiDAR, RADAR, and Camera Fusion Network for Real-time Weather-type Classification in Autonomous Driving

Mar 23, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics BIRD Precision Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

Fast side-by-side comparison for the highest-ranked papers in this hub.

Signal Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Present… Do Phone-Use Agents Respect Your Privacy? CausalRM: Causal-Theoretic Reward Modeling for RLHF…
Human Feedback Rubric RatingPairwise PreferencePairwise Preference
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks Paperwrite BenchAPPS, MyphonebenchHarmbench
Metrics Not reportedTask successNot reported
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit Multi Dim RubricUnknownUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

This section is intentionally expanded only when needed; use “Start Here” above for a faster pass.

Suggested Reading Order

  1. The Detection-Extraction Gap: Models Know the Answer Before They Can Say It

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Modern reasoning models continue generating long after the answer is already determined.

  2. Paper Circle: An Open-source Multi-agent Research Discovery and Analysis Framework

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: recall. Abstract: The rapid growth of scientific literature has made it increasingly difficult for researchers.

  3. AgentGL: Towards Agentic Graph Learning with LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly rely on agentic capabilities-iterative retrieval, tool use, and.

  4. Grounding Arabic LLMs in the Doha Historical Dictionary: Retrieval-Augmented Understanding of Quran and Hadith

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Gemini also serves as an LLM-as-a-judge system for automatic evaluation in our.

  5. Learning to Predict Future-Aligned Research Proposals with Language Models

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to assist ideation in research,.

  6. PRBench: End-to-end Paper Reproduction in Physics Research

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: All tasks are contributed by domain experts from.

  7. Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Presentation and Hallucination in AI-written Papers

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: Paperwrite-Bench / cost. Abstract: PaperRecon disentangles the evaluation.

  8. Do Phone-Use Agents Respect Your Privacy?

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + pairwise preferences. Focus: APPS / task success. Abstract: Across five frontier.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 7.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.5% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Research Utility Snapshot

Human Feedback Mix

  • Pairwise Preference (3)
  • Rubric Rating (3)
  • Expert Verification (2)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (26)
  • Human Eval (2)
  • Llm As Judge (1)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • APPS (1)
  • BFCL (1)
  • BIRD (1)
  • GSM8K (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (13)
  • Cost (9)
  • Inference cost (2)
  • Latency (2)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (3)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (1)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 26.9% · benchmarks 34.6% · metrics 100.0% · quality controls 7.7%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.