Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Long Horizon + Coding (Last 45 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 18 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 18 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. 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 Feb 15, 2026.

Papers: 18 Last published: Feb 15, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Long HorizonCodingLast 45d

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%

18 / 18 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.
  • 1 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

  • 22.2% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by critique/edit feedback.
  • automatic metrics appears in 66.7% of papers in this hub.
  • SWE-bench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (5.6% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • SWE-bench appears in 16.7% of hub papers (3/18); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • SWE-bench Verified appears in 16.7% of hub papers (3/18); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 27.8% of hub papers (5/18); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 27.8% of hub papers (5/18); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (22.2% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (33.3% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (72.2% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is strong (55.6% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Agentic evaluation appears in 100% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 5.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16.7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • 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 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
KLong: Training LLM Agent for Extremely Long-horizon Tasks

Feb 19, 2026

Yes Not Reported SWE Bench , SWE Bench Verified Not Reported 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
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
Decoupling Strategy and Execution in Task-Focused Dialogue via Goal-Oriented Preference Optimization

Jan 24, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Task success 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
Structurally Aligned Subtask-Level Memory for Software Engineering Agents

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics SWE Bench Not Reported Not Reported
Unlocking Reasoning Capability on Machine Translation in Large Language Models

Feb 16, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
FrameRef: A Framing Dataset and Simulation Testbed for Modeling Bounded Rational Information Health

Feb 17, 2026

No
Not Reported
Human Eval , Simulation Env Not Reported Not Reported Adjudication
Self-Correcting VLA: Online Action Refinement via Sparse World Imagination

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Simulation Env Not Reported Success rate , Throughput 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
Continuous Telemonitoring of Heart Failure using Personalised Speech Dynamics

Feb 23, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Cost 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… KLong: Training LLM Agent for Extremely Long-horizo… SWE-Protégé: Learning to Selectively Collaborate Wi…
Human Feedback Expert VerificationRubric RatingNot reported
Evaluation Modes Simulation EnvNot reportedAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks Ad BenchSWE Bench, SWE Bench VerifiedSWE Bench, SWE Bench Verified
Metrics Pass@1, Pass@3Not reportedPass@1, Latency
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population Domain ExpertsUnknownDomain Experts
Annotation Unit TrajectoryMulti Dim RubricUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. Test-Time Scaling with Diffusion Language Models via Reward-Guided Stitching

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Reasoning with large language models often benefits from generating multiple chains-of-thought, but existing.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. FrameRef: A Framing Dataset and Simulation Testbed for Modeling Bounded Rational Information Health

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation. Abstract: Human evaluation further confirms that FrameRef's generated framings measurably affect human judgment.

  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. Decoupling Strategy and Execution in Task-Focused Dialogue via Goal-Oriented Preference Optimization

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: automatic metrics + pairwise preferences. Focus: task success. Abstract: Large language models show potential in task-oriented.

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

    Adds evaluation protocol evidence with rubric ratings for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: rubric ratings. Focus: SWE-bench. Abstract: Then, we introduce Research-Factory, an automated pipeline that.

  8. Self-Correcting VLA: Online Action Refinement via Sparse World Imagination

    Adds simulation environments for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: simulation environments. Focus: success rate. Abstract: Standard vision-language-action (VLA) models rely on fitting statistical data priors, limiting.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 5.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16.7% 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

  • Critique Edit (1)
  • Expert Verification (1)
  • Pairwise Preference (1)
  • Rubric Rating (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (12)
  • Simulation Env (4)
  • Human Eval (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • SWE Bench (3)
  • SWE Bench Verified (3)
  • MLE Bench (2)
  • Ad Bench (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (5)
  • Cost (5)
  • Latency (3)
  • Pass@1 (3)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (3)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 22.2% · benchmarks 33.3% · metrics 66.7% · quality controls 5.6%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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