Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Long Horizon + Coding (Last 45 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 17, 2026). 16 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 17, 2026). 16 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequently cited benchmark: BFCL. 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 Apr 1, 2026.

Papers: 16 Last published: Apr 1, 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%

16 / 16 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.

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 12.5% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by critique/edit feedback.
  • automatic metrics appears in 87.5% of papers in this hub.
  • BFCL 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

  • BFCL appears in 6.3% of hub papers (1/16); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • GSM8K appears in 6.3% of hub papers (1/16); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 50% of hub papers (8/16); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 18.8% of hub papers (3/16); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.5% 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 (31.3% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (87.5% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is strong (43.8% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Agentic evaluation appears in 100% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.3% 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 (BFCL 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
When Users Change Their Mind: Evaluating Interruptible Agents in Long-Horizon Web Navigation

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Simulation Env WebArena , Interruptbench Not Reported Not Reported
S0 Tuning: Zero-Overhead Adaptation of Hybrid Recurrent-Attention Models

Apr 1, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics MATH 500 , GSM8K Pass@1 , Inference cost Not Reported
SkillX: Automatically Constructing Skill Knowledge Bases for Agents

Apr 6, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics BFCL Task success Not Reported
Effective Strategies for Asynchronous Software Engineering Agents

Mar 23, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Paperbench Accuracy Not Reported
LIT-RAGBench: Benchmarking Generator Capabilities of Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Mar 6, 2026

No
Not Reported
Llm As Judge , Automatic Metrics Lit Ragbench Accuracy Not Reported
The Ultimate Tutorial for AI-driven Scale Development in Generative Psychometrics: Releasing AIGENIE from its Bottle

Mar 30, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Scaling Reasoning Tokens via RL and Parallel Thinking: Evidence From Competitive Programming

Apr 1, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Pass@1 Not Reported
TRIMS: Trajectory-Ranked Instruction Masked Supervision for Diffusion Language Models

Apr 1, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
The Evolution of Tool Use in LLM Agents: From Single-Tool Call to Multi-Tool Orchestration

Mar 24, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
AgentGL: Towards Agentic Graph Learning with LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

Apr 7, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
Oblivion: Self-Adaptive Agentic Memory Control through Decay-Driven Activation

Mar 31, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Hierarchical Chain-of-Thought Prompting: Enhancing LLM Reasoning Performance and Efficiency

Mar 31, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Coherence Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal When Users Change Their Mind: Evaluating Interrupti… S0 Tuning: Zero-Overhead Adaptation of Hybrid Recur… SkillX: Automatically Constructing Skill Knowledge…
Human Feedback Critique EditNot reportedNot reported
Evaluation Modes Simulation EnvAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks WebArena, InterruptbenchMATH 500, GSM8KBFCL
Metrics Not reportedPass@1, Inference costTask success
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit UnknownTrajectoryUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. AgentGL: Towards Agentic Graph Learning with LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly rely on agentic capabilities-iterative retrieval, tool use, and.

  2. SkillX: Automatically Constructing Skill Knowledge Bases for Agents

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: BFCL / task success. Abstract: Learning from experience is critical for building capable large language.

  3. Scaling Reasoning Tokens via RL and Parallel Thinking: Evidence From Competitive Programming

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: We study how to scale reasoning token budgets for competitive programming through two.

  4. When Users Change Their Mind: Evaluating Interruptible Agents in Long-Horizon Web Navigation

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: simulation environments + critique/edit feedback. Focus: WebArena. Abstract: As LLM agents transition from short, static problem solving.

  5. LIT-RAGBench: Benchmarking Generator Capabilities of Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: LLM-as-judge. Focus: lit-ragbench / accuracy. Abstract: We use LLM-as-a-Judge for scoring and report category-wise and overall accuracy.

  6. JAWS: Enhancing Long-term Rollout of Neural PDE Solvers via Spatially-Adaptive Jacobian Regularization

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Data-driven surrogate models can significantly accelerate the simulation of continuous dynamical systems,.

  7. The Ultimate Tutorial for AI-driven Scale Development in Generative Psychometrics: Releasing AIGENIE from its Bottle

    Adds evaluation protocol evidence with critique/edit feedback for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: critique/edit feedback. Abstract: Psychological scale development has traditionally required extensive expert involvement, iterative.

  8. S0 Tuning: Zero-Overhead Adaptation of Hybrid Recurrent-Attention Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: MATH-500 / pass@1. Abstract: Using roughly 48 execution-verified HumanEval training solutions, tuning a single.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.3% 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 (2)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (14)
  • Simulation Env (2)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • BFCL (1)
  • GSM8K (1)
  • HumanEval+ (1)
  • Interruptbench (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (8)
  • Cost (3)
  • Latency (2)
  • Pass@1 (2)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (1)

Quality Controls

Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 12.5% · benchmarks 31.3% · metrics 87.5% · quality controls 0.0%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.