Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Long Horizon + Automatic Metrics (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 40 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 40 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: SWE-bench. 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 3, 2026.

Papers: 40 Last published: Mar 3, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Long HorizonAutomatic MetricsLast 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%

40 / 40 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

8

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 8 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 0 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.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 2.5% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by expert verification.
  • automatic metrics appears in 100% of papers in this hub.
  • SWE-bench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (5% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (SWE-bench vs SWE-bench Verified) before comparing methods.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • SWE-bench appears in 5% of hub papers (2/40); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • SWE-bench Verified appears in 5% of hub papers (2/40); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 55% of hub papers (22/40); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 27.5% of hub papers (11/40); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (2.5% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (5% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (22.5% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (95% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.5% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

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

Strengths

  • Agentic evaluation appears in 100% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 5% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7.5% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (SWE-bench vs SWE-bench Verified) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.
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
Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification

Mar 3, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Brier score , Auroc Calibration
AMA-Bench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Memory for Agentic Applications

Feb 26, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Ama Bench Accuracy Not Reported
SWE-Protégé: Learning to Selectively Collaborate With an Expert Unlocks Small Language Models as Software Engineering Agents

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics SWE Bench , SWE Bench Verified Pass@1 , Latency 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
DARE-bench: Evaluating Modeling and Instruction Fidelity of LLMs in Data Science

Feb 27, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Dare Bench Accuracy Not Reported
Search More, Think Less: Rethinking Long-Horizon Agentic Search for Efficiency and Generalization

Feb 26, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics GAIA , BrowseComp Accuracy , Latency Not Reported
BankMathBench: A Benchmark for Numerical Reasoning in Banking Scenarios

Feb 19, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Bankmathbench Accuracy Not Reported
The Sufficiency-Conciseness Trade-off in LLM Self-Explanation from an Information Bottleneck Perspective

Feb 15, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics ARC Challenge Accuracy , Conciseness Not Reported
AceGRPO: Adaptive Curriculum Enhanced Group Relative Policy Optimization for Autonomous Machine Learning Engineering

Feb 8, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics MLE Bench Latency Not Reported
PMG: Parameterized Motion Generator for Human-like Locomotion Control

Feb 13, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Calibration Calibration
Structurally Aligned Subtask-Level Memory for Software Engineering Agents

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics SWE Bench Not Reported Not Reported
LaSER: Internalizing Explicit Reasoning into Latent Space for Dense Retrieval

Mar 2, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Latency Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-S… AMA-Bench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Memory for Agent… SWE-Protégé: Learning to Selectively Collaborate Wi…
Human Feedback Expert VerificationNot reportedNot reported
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks Not reportedAma BenchSWE Bench, SWE Bench Verified
Metrics Brier score, AurocAccuracyPass@1, Latency
Quality Controls CalibrationNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population Domain ExpertsDomain ExpertsDomain Experts
Annotation Unit TrajectoryUnknownUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: brier score. Abstract: As LLM-powered agents have been used for high-stakes decision-making,.

  2. From Verbatim to Gist: Distilling Pyramidal Multimodal Memory via Semantic Information Bottleneck for Long-Horizon Video Agents

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: latency. Abstract: While multimodal large language models have demonstrated impressive short-term reasoning, they.

  3. LaSER: Internalizing Explicit Reasoning into Latent Space for Dense Retrieval

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: latency. Abstract: LLMs have fundamentally transformed dense retrieval, upgrading backbones from discriminative encoders.

  4. PMG: Parameterized Motion Generator for Human-like Locomotion Control

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: calibration. Abstract: Recent advances in data-driven reinforcement learning and motion tracking have substantially improved.

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

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: Ama-Bench / accuracy. Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed as autonomous agents in.

  6. SWE-Protégé: Learning to Selectively Collaborate With an Expert Unlocks Small Language Models as Software Engineering Agents

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: SWE-bench / pass@1. Abstract: Small language models (SLMs) offer compelling advantages in cost, latency,.

  7. D-COT: Disciplined Chain-of-Thought Learning for Efficient Reasoning in Small Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: MMLU / accuracy. Abstract: Chain-of-Thought (CoT) distillation from Large Language Models (LLMs) often induces.

  8. DARE-bench: Evaluating Modeling and Instruction Fidelity of LLMs in Data Science

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: Dare-Bench / accuracy. Abstract: Unlike many existing benchmarks that rely on human- or model-based.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 5% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7.5% 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

  • Expert Verification (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (40)

Top Benchmarks

  • SWE Bench (2)
  • SWE Bench Verified (2)
  • Ama Bench (1)
  • ARC Challenge (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (22)
  • Cost (11)
  • Latency (8)
  • Inference cost (2)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (3)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (2)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 2.5% · benchmarks 22.5% · metrics 90.0% · quality controls 5.0%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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