Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Automatic Metrics + Coding (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 33 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 33 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. 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: 33 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%

33 / 33 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

11

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

1

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 11 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 1 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 3 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

  • 30.3% 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 (6.1% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • APPS appears in 3% of hub papers (1/33); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • BFCL appears in 3% of hub papers (1/33); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 54.5% of hub papers (18/33); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 33.3% of hub papers (11/33); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Moderate: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (30.3% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (33.3% 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 (9.1% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (30.3% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 63.6% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 9.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9.1% 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 Cost Not Reported
Modeling and Benchmarking Spoken Dialogue Rewards with Modality and Colloquialness

Mar 16, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Esdr Bench Accuracy 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 Cost 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 Cost , 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 , Cost Not Reported
IslamicMMLU: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Islamic Knowledge

Mar 24, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
Truth as a Compression Artifact in Language Model Training

Mar 12, 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

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Present… Modeling and Benchmarking Spoken Dialogue Rewards w… Do Phone-Use Agents Respect Your Privacy?
Human Feedback Rubric RatingPairwise PreferencePairwise Preference
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks Paperwrite BenchEsdr BenchAPPS, Myphonebench
Metrics CostAccuracyTask success
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit Multi Dim RubricPairwiseUnknown
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. PRBench: End-to-end Paper Reproduction in Physics Research

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: All tasks are contributed by domain experts from over.

  6. Criterion-referenceability determines LLM-as-a-judge validity across physics assessment formats

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: We evaluate LLM-as-a-judge marking across three physics assessment formats - structured questions,.

  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. Modeling and Benchmarking Spoken Dialogue Rewards with Modality and Colloquialness

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + pairwise preferences. Focus: Esdr-Bench / accuracy. Abstract: To address these challenges,.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 9.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9.1% 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 (6)
  • Rubric Rating (3)
  • Expert Verification (2)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (33)
  • Human Eval (2)
  • Llm As Judge (2)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • APPS (1)
  • BFCL (1)
  • BIRD (1)
  • Esdr Bench (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (18)
  • Cost (11)
  • Agreement (2)
  • Inference cost (2)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (3)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (2)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 30.3% · benchmarks 33.3% · metrics 100.0% · quality controls 9.1%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.