Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Automatic Metrics + Rubric Rating Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 11 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: LongBench. 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: 11 Last published: Feb 25, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Automatic MetricsRubric Rating

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 11 papers for Automatic Metrics + Rubric Rating Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, with frequent benchmark focus on LongBench, Mle-Bench and metric focus on accuracy, agreement. 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

  • LongBench appears in 9.1% of hub papers (1/11); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Mle-Bench appears in 9.1% of hub papers (1/11); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 27.3% of hub papers (3/11); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • agreement is reported in 9.1% of hub papers (1/11); 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).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is usable but incomplete (18.2% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (36.4% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is strong (36.4% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

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

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is usable but incomplete (18.2% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (36.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is strong (36.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Cross-Cultural Expert-Level Art Critique Evaluation with Vision-Language Models

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

  2. 2. RuCL: Stratified Rubric-Based Curriculum Learning for Multimodal Large Language Model Reasoning

    High citation traction makes this a useful baseline for method and protocol context.

  3. 3. SibylSense: Adaptive Rubric Learning via Memory Tuning and Adversarial Probing

    High citation traction makes this a useful baseline for method and protocol context.

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

    High citation traction makes this a useful baseline for method and protocol context.

  5. 5. KLong: Training LLM Agent for Extremely Long-horizon Tasks

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Quantifying and Mitigating Socially Desirable Responding in LLMs: A Desirability-Matched Graded Forced-Choice Psychometric Study

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Small Reward Models via Backward Inference

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Document Reconstruction Unlocks Scalable Long-Context RLVR

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 18.2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (18.2% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

Benchmark Brief

LongBench

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention LongBench.

Examples: Document Reconstruction Unlocks Scalable Long-Context RLVR

Benchmark Brief

Mle-Bench

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention Mle-Bench.

Examples: KLong: Training LLM Agent for Extremely Long-horizon Tasks

Benchmark Brief

Paperbench

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention Paperbench.

Examples: KLong: Training LLM Agent for Extremely Long-horizon Tasks

Metric Brief

agreement

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention agreement.

Examples: A Scalable Framework for Evaluating Health Language Models

Metric Brief

coherence

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention coherence.

Examples: Document Reconstruction Unlocks Scalable Long-Context RLVR

Top Papers

Related Hubs