Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Coding + Pairwise Preference Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 19 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequently cited benchmark: LiveCodeBench. 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: 19 Last published: Feb 25, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
CodingPairwise Preference

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 19 papers for Coding + Pairwise Preference Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, human evaluation, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on LiveCodeBench, BrowseComp and metric focus on accuracy, cost. 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

  • LiveCodeBench appears in 10.5% of hub papers (2/19); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • BrowseComp appears in 5.3% of hub papers (1/19); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 15.8% of hub papers (3/19); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 10.5% of hub papers (2/19); 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).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.1% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (42.1% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.1% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is strong (42.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

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

Papers reporting quality controls

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

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.1% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (42.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is strong (42.1% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

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

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

  2. 2. HiSAC: Hierarchical Sparse Activation Compression for Ultra-long Sequence Modeling in Recommenders

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

  3. 3. gencat: Generative computerized adaptive testing

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

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

    Include a human-eval paper to anchor calibration against automated judge settings.

  5. 5. Hierarchical Reward Design from Language: Enhancing Alignment of Agent Behavior with Human Specifications

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Persona2Web: Benchmarking Personalized Web Agents for Contextual Reasoning with User History

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. ChartEditBench: Evaluating Grounded Multi-Turn Chart Editing in Multimodal Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Rethinking Metrics for Lexical Semantic Change Detection

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (21.1% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=17

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=17, right_only=1

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

human_eval vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=1

0 papers use both Human Eval and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

LiveCodeBench

Coverage: 2 papers (10.5%)

2 papers (10.5%) mention LiveCodeBench.

Examples: Duel-Evolve: Reward-Free Test-Time Scaling via LLM Self-Preferences , Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence with 11B Active Parameters

Benchmark Brief

BrowseComp

Coverage: 1 papers (5.3%)

1 papers (5.3%) mention BrowseComp.

Examples: Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence with 11B Active Parameters

Benchmark Brief

Charteditbench

Coverage: 1 papers (5.3%)

1 papers (5.3%) mention Charteditbench.

Examples: ChartEditBench: Evaluating Grounded Multi-Turn Chart Editing in Multimodal Language Models

Top Papers

Related Hubs