Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.IR + Automatic Metrics Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 91 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 91 papers are grouped in this hub 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: BFCL. 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 19, 2026.

Papers: 91 Last published: Mar 19, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Cs.IRAutomatic Metrics

Researcher Quick Triage

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

Analysis blocks below are computed from the currently loaded sample (34 of 91 total papers in this hub).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

34 / 34 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

8

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

1

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 8 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 1 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 4 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

  • 11% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 100% of papers in this hub.
  • BFCL 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 (4.4% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly ranking annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • BFCL appears in 1.1% of hub papers (1/91); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Finagentbench appears in 1.1% of hub papers (1/91); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 6.6% of hub papers (6/91); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • latency is reported in 4.4% of hub papers (4/91); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (11% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.6% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (4.4% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (22% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.1% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (25.3% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.

Known Gaps

  • Only 6.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (12.1% coverage).
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (4.4% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (BFCL vs Finagentbench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and latency.
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
SODIUM: From Open Web Data to Queryable Databases

Mar 19, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Sodium Bench Accuracy Not Reported
Beyond Paper-to-Paper: Structured Profiling and Rubric Scoring for Paper-Reviewer Matching

Apr 7, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Scirepeval Recall Not Reported
A Multi-Stage Validation Framework for Trustworthy Large-scale Clinical Information Extraction using Large Language Models

Apr 7, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported F1 , Agreement Calibration , Adjudication
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
Aligning Multimodal Sequential Recommendations via Robust Direct Preference Optimization with Sparse MoE

Mar 31, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Ndcg , Cost Not Reported
Optimizing RAG Rerankers with LLM Feedback via Reinforcement Learning

Apr 2, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Relevance Not Reported
OneSearch-V2: The Latent Reasoning Enhanced Self-distillation Generative Search Framework

Mar 25, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Latency , Relevance Not Reported
SkillX: Automatically Constructing Skill Knowledge Bases for Agents

Apr 6, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics BFCL Task success Not Reported
PRISM: Prompt-Refined In-Context System Modelling for Financial Retrieval

Nov 18, 2025

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Finagentbench , Financebench Ndcg , Latency Not Reported
PosIR: Position-Aware Heterogeneous Information Retrieval Benchmark

Jan 13, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Relevance Not Reported
Toward Safe and Human-Aligned Game Conversational Recommendation via Multi-Agent Decomposition

Apr 26, 2025

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Hit@5 Not Reported
Role-Augmented Intent-Driven Generative Search Engine Optimization

Aug 15, 2025

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Perplexity Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal SODIUM: From Open Web Data to Queryable Databases Beyond Paper-to-Paper: Structured Profiling and Rub… A Multi-Stage Validation Framework for Trustworthy…
Human Feedback Expert VerificationRubric RatingExpert Verification
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks Sodium BenchScirepevalNot reported
Metrics AccuracyRecallF1, Agreement
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedCalibration, Adjudication
Rater Population Domain ExpertsDomain ExpertsDomain Experts
Annotation Unit UnknownMulti Dim RubricUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. LLM-based Schema-Guided Extraction and Validation of Missing-Person Intelligence from Heterogeneous Data Sources

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: f1. Abstract: Missing-person and child-safety investigations rely on heterogeneous case documents, including structured forms, bulletin-style.

  2. JUÁ -- A Benchmark for Information Retrieval in Brazilian Legal Text Collections

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: relevance. Abstract: Legal information retrieval in Portuguese remains difficult to evaluate systematically because available datasets.

  3. A Multi-Stage Validation Framework for Trustworthy Large-scale Clinical Information Extraction using Large Language Models

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: f1. Abstract: Conventional evaluation methods rely heavily on annotation-intensive reference standards or.

  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. Peeking inside the Black-Box: Reinforcement Learning for Explainable and Accurate Relation Extraction

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Finally, human evaluation shows that our best model generates relational keywords closely.

  6. SODIUM: From Open Web Data to Queryable Databases

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: Sodium-Bench / accuracy. Abstract: During research, domain experts often ask.

  7. Beyond Paper-to-Paper: Structured Profiling and Rubric Scoring for Paper-Reviewer Matching

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: Scirepeval / recall. Abstract: It first performs hybrid.

  8. Toward Safe and Human-Aligned Game Conversational Recommendation via Multi-Agent Decomposition

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + pairwise preferences. Focus: hit@5. Abstract: These domains typically involve fixed content.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 6.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (12.1% 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)
  • Expert Verification (2)
  • Rubric Rating (2)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (91)
  • Human Eval (2)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • BFCL (1)
  • Finagentbench (1)
  • Financebench (1)
  • Scirepeval (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (6)
  • Latency (4)
  • Cost (3)
  • F1 (3)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (11)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (4)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (2)
  • Adjudication (1)
  • Gold Questions (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 29.4% · benchmarks 23.5% · metrics 94.1% · quality controls 11.8%.

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.