Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Automatic Metrics + General + Pairwise Preference Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 33 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. 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: 33 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Automatic MetricsGeneralPairwise Preference

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 33 papers for Automatic Metrics + General + Pairwise Preference Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, LMSYS Chatbot Arena 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 12.1% of hub papers (4/33); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • LMSYS Chatbot Arena appears in 9.1% of hub papers (3/33); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 18.2% of hub papers (6/33); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • calibration is reported in 3% of hub papers (1/33); 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 (6.1% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (24.2% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.3% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (6.1% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is usable but incomplete (33.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

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

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (6.1% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (24.2% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (6.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Moral Preferences of LLMs Under Directed Contextual Influence

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

  2. 2. DynamicGTR: Leveraging Graph Topology Representation Preferences to Boost VLM Capabilities on Graph QAs

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

  3. 3. The ASIR Courage Model: A Phase-Dynamic Framework for Truth Transitions in Human and AI Systems

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

  4. 4. CCCaption: Dual-Reward Reinforcement Learning for Complete and Correct Image Captioning

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

  5. 5. Alignment-Weighted DPO: A principled reasoning approach to improve safety alignment

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

  6. 6. Probing Graph Neural Network Activation Patterns Through Graph Topology

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

  7. 7. CAMEL: Confidence-Gated Reflection for Reward Modeling

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

  8. 8. Learning to Reason for Multi-Step Retrieval of Personal Context in Personalized Question Answering

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

Known Limitations

  • Only 6.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.1% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=1, left_only=32, right_only=0

1 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

AlpacaEval

Coverage: 1 papers (3%)

1 papers (3%) mention AlpacaEval.

Examples: Revisiting Self-Play Preference Optimization: On the Role of Prompt Difficulty

Metric Brief

calibration

Coverage: 1 papers (3%)

1 papers (3%) mention calibration.

Examples: Who can we trust? LLM-as-a-jury for Comparative Assessment

Metric Brief

cost

Coverage: 1 papers (3%)

1 papers (3%) mention cost.

Examples: CAMEL: Confidence-Gated Reflection for Reward Modeling

Top Papers

Related Hubs