Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.LG + Coding Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 22 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 22 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequently cited benchmark: Ad-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 Feb 15, 2026.

Papers: 22 Last published: Feb 15, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Cs.LGCoding

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%

22 / 22 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

4

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 4 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 (Expanded)

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 50% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 40.9% of papers in this hub.
  • Ad-Bench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

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 pairwise annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • Ad-Bench appears in 4.5% of hub papers (1/22); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • ALFWorld appears in 4.5% of hub papers (1/22); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 18.2% of hub papers (4/22); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • latency is reported in 13.6% of hub papers (3/22); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (50% 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 (22.7% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (45.5% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (22.7% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is strong (40.9% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (50% of papers).
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 59.1% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (22.7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Stratify by benchmark (Ad-Bench vs ALFWorld) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and latency.
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
AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertising Analytics Benchmark for LLM Agents

Feb 15, 2026

Yes Simulation Env Ad Bench Pass@1 , Pass@3 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
Zooming without Zooming: Region-to-Image Distillation for Fine-Grained Multimodal Perception

Feb 12, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Zoombench Latency 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
Precise Attribute Intensity Control in Large Language Models via Targeted Representation Editing

Oct 14, 2025

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
Hierarchy-of-Groups Policy Optimization for Long-Horizon Agentic Tasks

Feb 26, 2026

No
Not Reported
Simulation Env ALFWorld , WebShop Not Reported Not Reported
The Vision Wormhole: Latent-Space Communication in Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Systems

Feb 17, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Why Code, Why Now: Learnability, Computability, and the Real Limits of Machine Learning

Feb 15, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Learning beyond Teacher: Generalized On-Policy Distillation with Reward Extrapolation

Feb 12, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Inner Speech as Behavior Guides: Steerable Imitation of Diverse Behaviors for Human-AI coordination

Feb 24, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
A Benchmark for Deep Information Synthesis

Feb 24, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported F1 Not Reported
GUI-Libra: Training Native GUI Agents to Reason and Act with Action-aware Supervision and Partially Verifiable RL

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Task success Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertisin… SWE-Protégé: Learning to Selectively Collaborate Wi… Zooming without Zooming: Region-to-Image Distillati…
Human Feedback Expert VerificationNot reportedNot reported
Evaluation Modes Simulation EnvAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks Ad BenchSWE Bench, SWE Bench VerifiedZoombench
Metrics Pass@1, Pass@3Pass@1, LatencyLatency
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population Domain ExpertsDomain ExpertsUnknown
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. Hierarchy-of-Groups Policy Optimization for Long-Horizon Agentic Tasks

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: simulation environments. Focus: ALFWorld. Abstract: Group-based reinforcement learning (RL), such as GRPO, has advanced the capabilities of large.

  2. GUI-Libra: Training Native GUI Agents to Reason and Act with Action-aware Supervision and Partially Verifiable RL

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Open-source native GUI agents still lag behind closed-source systems on long-horizon navigation tasks.

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

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: SWE-bench / pass@1. Abstract: Small language models (SLMs) offer compelling advantages in cost, latency, and.

  4. Incentivizing Agentic Reasoning in LLM Judges via Tool-Integrated Reinforcement Learning

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + pairwise preferences. Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as judges to evaluate.

  5. AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertising Analytics Benchmark for LLM Agents

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: simulation environments + expert verification. Focus: Ad-Bench / pass@1. Abstract: While Large Language Model (LLM) agents have.

  6. Supervised Reinforcement Learning: From Expert Trajectories to Step-wise Reasoning

    Adds evaluation protocol evidence with demonstration data for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: demonstration data. Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with problems that require.

  7. The Vision Wormhole: Latent-Space Communication in Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Systems

    Adds evaluation protocol evidence with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: pairwise preferences. Abstract: Our framework adopts a hub-and-spoke topology to reduce pairwise alignment.

  8. CORE: Measuring Multi-Agent LLM Interaction Quality under Game-Theoretic Pressures

    Adds evaluation protocol evidence with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: pairwise preferences. Abstract: We apply CORE to pairwise LLM dialogs across competitive, cooperative,.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (22.7% 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 (5)
  • Demonstrations (3)
  • Expert Verification (2)
  • Rubric Rating (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (9)
  • Simulation Env (6)
  • Human Eval (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Ad Bench (1)
  • ALFWorld (1)
  • MLE Bench (1)
  • SWE Bench (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (4)
  • Latency (3)
  • F1 (2)
  • Pass@1 (2)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (5)

Quality Controls

Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 50.0% · benchmarks 22.7% · metrics 45.5% · quality controls 0.0%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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