Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Automatic Metrics + Math (Last 120 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 14 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 14 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. Frequently cited benchmark: Bankmathbench. 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 25, 2026.

Papers: 14 Last published: Feb 25, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Automatic MetricsMathLast 120d

Researcher Quick Triage

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

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

14 / 14 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

3

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

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

  • 14.3% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 100% of papers in this hub.
  • Bankmathbench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • Bankmathbench appears in 7.1% of hub papers (1/14); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • GSM8K appears in 7.1% of hub papers (1/14); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 64.3% of hub papers (9/14); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 28.6% of hub papers (4/14); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (14.3% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (28.6% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (92.9% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.1% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is strong (42.9% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Agentic evaluation appears in 78.6% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7.1% coverage).
  • LLM-as-judge appears without enough inter-annotator agreement reporting.

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Stratify by benchmark (Bankmathbench vs GSM8K) 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
Duel-Evolve: Reward-Free Test-Time Scaling via LLM Self-Preferences

Feb 25, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics LiveCodeBench , Mathbench Accuracy Not Reported
Surgical Post-Training: Cutting Errors, Keeping Knowledge

Mar 2, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
BankMathBench: A Benchmark for Numerical Reasoning in Banking Scenarios

Feb 19, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Bankmathbench Accuracy Not Reported
Gradient Regularization Prevents Reward Hacking in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback and Verifiable Rewards

Feb 20, 2026

Yes
Not Reported
Llm As Judge , Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Win rate Not Reported
Cache What Lasts: Token Retention for Memory-Bounded KV Cache in LLMs

Dec 3, 2025

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics MATH 500 , GSM8K Cost Not Reported
GenDB: The Next Generation of Query Processing -- Synthesized, Not Engineered

Mar 2, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Cost Not Reported
Recycling Failures: Salvaging Exploration in RLVR via Fine-Grained Off-Policy Guidance

Feb 27, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
Test-Time Scaling with Diffusion Language Models via Reward-Guided Stitching

Feb 26, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Latency Not Reported
GATES: Self-Distillation under Privileged Context with Consensus Gating

Feb 24, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
AgentDropoutV2: Optimizing Information Flow in Multi-Agent Systems via Test-Time Rectify-or-Reject Pruning

Feb 26, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
Orthogonalized Policy Optimization:Policy Optimization as Orthogonal Projection in Hilbert Space

Jan 18, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics MATH Not Reported Not Reported
Replaying pre-training data improves fine-tuning

Mar 5, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal Duel-Evolve: Reward-Free Test-Time Scaling via LLM… Surgical Post-Training: Cutting Errors, Keeping Kno… BankMathBench: A Benchmark for Numerical Reasoning…
Human Feedback Pairwise PreferencePairwise PreferenceNot reported
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks LiveCodeBench, MathbenchNot reportedBankmathbench
Metrics AccuracyAccuracyAccuracy
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit PairwiseRankingUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. Replaying pre-training data improves fine-tuning

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: To obtain a language model for a target domain (e.g.

  2. GenDB: The Next Generation of Query Processing -- Synthesized, Not Engineered

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: cost. Abstract: Traditional query processing relies on engines that are carefully optimized and engineered by.

  3. Surgical Post-Training: Cutting Errors, Keeping Knowledge

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + pairwise preferences. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: While prior research emphasizes the role of on-policy data in.

  4. Duel-Evolve: Reward-Free Test-Time Scaling via LLM Self-Preferences

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: automatic metrics + pairwise preferences. Focus: LiveCodeBench / accuracy. Abstract: Pairwise comparisons, by contrast, are often easier.

  5. Gradient Regularization Prevents Reward Hacking in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback and Verifiable Rewards

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: GR achieves a higher GPT-judged win-rate in RLHF, avoids overly focusing on.

  6. Cache What Lasts: Token Retention for Memory-Bounded KV Cache in LLMs

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: MATH-500 / cost. Abstract: Memory and computation remain core bottlenecks in long-horizon LLM inference.

  7. BankMathBench: A Benchmark for Numerical Reasoning in Banking Scenarios

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: Bankmathbench / accuracy. Abstract: Large language models (LLMs)-based chatbots are increasingly being adopted in.

  8. Recycling Failures: Salvaging Exploration in RLVR via Fine-Grained Off-Policy Guidance

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Reinforcement Learning from Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has emerged as a powerful paradigm.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7.1% 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 (2)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (14)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Bankmathbench (1)
  • GSM8K (1)
  • LiveCodeBench (1)
  • Longmemeval (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (9)
  • Cost (4)
  • Agreement (1)
  • Coherence (1)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (1)

Quality Controls

Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 21.4% · benchmarks 28.6% · metrics 92.9% · quality controls 0.0%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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