Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Automatic Metrics + General (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 59 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 59 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequent quality control: Inter Annotator Agreement Reported. Frequently cited benchmark: BrowseComp. 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 13, 2026.

Papers: 59 Last published: Feb 13, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Automatic MetricsGeneralLast 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%

59 / 59 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

6

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 6 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 0 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 5 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.

Why This Matters (Expanded)

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 39% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 100% of papers in this hub.
  • BrowseComp is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is inter-annotator agreement reporting (5.1% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • BrowseComp appears in 3.4% of hub papers (2/59); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MMLU appears in 3.4% of hub papers (2/59); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 45.8% of hub papers (27/59); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 18.6% of hub papers (11/59); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Moderate: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (39% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.5% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.9% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (78% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.9% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

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

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 52.5% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 8.5% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.9% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (22% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

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

Recommended Queries

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
SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM Judging

Feb 13, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics MT Bench , LMSYS Chatbot Arena Error rate Calibration
MemoryArena: Benchmarking Agent Memory in Interdependent Multi-Session Agentic Tasks

Feb 18, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Memoryarena Recall Not Reported
Personalized Prediction of Perceived Message Effectiveness Using Large Language Model Based Digital Twins

Feb 23, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , F1 Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
Yor-Sarc: A gold-standard dataset for sarcasm detection in a low-resource African language

Feb 21, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Agreement Inter Annotator Agreement Reported , Adjudication
Same Words, Different Judgments: Modality Effects on Preference Alignment

Feb 26, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Agreement Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
Modeling Distinct Human Interaction in Web Agents

Feb 19, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
RuCL: Stratified Rubric-Based Curriculum Learning for Multimodal Large Language Model Reasoning

Feb 25, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
An Expert Schema for Evaluating Large Language Model Errors in Scholarly Question-Answering Systems

Feb 24, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Precision Not Reported
CAMEL: Confidence-Gated Reflection for Reward Modeling

Feb 24, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Cost Not Reported
LM-Lexicon: Improving Definition Modeling via Harmonizing Semantic Experts

Feb 15, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Bleu Not Reported
AMA-Bench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Memory for Agentic Applications

Feb 26, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Ama Bench Accuracy Not Reported
D-COT: Disciplined Chain-of-Thought Learning for Efficient Reasoning in Small Language Models

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics MMLU , MMLU Pro Accuracy Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM J… MemoryArena: Benchmarking Agent Memory in Interdepe… Personalized Prediction of Perceived Message Effect…
Human Feedback Pairwise PreferencePairwise PreferenceRubric Rating
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks MT Bench, LMSYS Chatbot ArenaMemoryarenaNot reported
Metrics Error rateRecallAccuracy, F1
Quality Controls CalibrationNot reportedInter Annotator Agreement Reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit PairwiseUnknownScalar
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. Spatio-Temporal Token Pruning for Efficient High-Resolution GUI Agents

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: precision. Abstract: Pure-vision GUI agents provide universal interaction capabilities but suffer from severe efficiency bottlenecks.

  2. DeepPresenter: Environment-Grounded Reflection for Agentic Presentation Generation

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: cost. Abstract: Presentation generation requires deep content research, coherent visual design, and iterative refinement based.

  3. AMA-Bench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Memory for Agentic Applications

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: Ama-Bench / accuracy. Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed as autonomous agents in increasingly.

  4. SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM Judging

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: automatic metrics + pairwise preferences. Focus: MT-Bench / error rate. Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly.

  5. MemoryArena: Benchmarking Agent Memory in Interdependent Multi-Session Agentic Tasks

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: automatic metrics + pairwise preferences. Focus: Memoryarena / recall. Abstract: MemoryArena supports evaluation across web navigation, preference-constrained.

  6. The Emergence of Lab-Driven Alignment Signatures: A Psychometric Framework for Auditing Latent Bias and Compounding Risk in Generative AI

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: As Large Language Models (LLMs) transition from standalone chat interfaces to foundational.

  7. Personalized Prediction of Perceived Message Effectiveness Using Large Language Model Based Digital Twins

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Perceived message effectiveness (PME) by potential.

  8. Yor-Sarc: A gold-standard dataset for sarcasm detection in a low-resource African language

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + pairwise preferences. Focus: agreement. Abstract: The dataset comprises 436 instances annotated.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 8.5% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.9% 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 (12)
  • Critique Edit (3)
  • Expert Verification (3)
  • Red Team (3)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (59)
  • Llm As Judge (4)
  • Human Eval (3)
  • Simulation Env (2)

Top Benchmarks

  • BrowseComp (2)
  • MMLU (2)
  • Ama Bench (1)
  • GAIA (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (27)
  • Cost (11)
  • Latency (5)
  • F1 (4)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (7)

Quality Controls

  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (3)
  • Calibration (2)
  • Adjudication (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 39.0% · benchmarks 10.2% · metrics 76.3% · quality controls 8.5%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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