Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Coding + Rubric Rating Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 11 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 11 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: Kernelbench. 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 Mar 3, 2026.

Papers: 11 Last published: Mar 3, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
CodingRubric Rating

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%

11 / 11 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

2

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 2 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 0 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 2 papers report explicit quality controls (calibration/adjudication/IAA).

Primary action: Use this page for scouting only; collect additional papers before attempting replication-critical comparisons.

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 100% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by rubric ratings.
  • automatic metrics appears in 36.4% of papers in this hub.
  • Kernelbench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (18.2% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly multi-dimensional rubrics; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.

Benchmark Interpretation

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

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 9.1% of hub papers (1/11); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • coherence is reported in 9.1% of hub papers (1/11); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

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

  • Moderate: Papers reporting quality controls

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

  • Strong: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

  • Strong: Papers with known rater population

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

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

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

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (100% of papers).
  • Most papers provide measurable evaluation context (36.4% benchmarks, 36.4% metrics).
  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.

Known Gaps

  • Only 18.2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • LLM-as-judge appears without enough inter-annotator agreement reporting.

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (Kernelbench vs LongBench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and coherence.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.
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
StitchCUDA: An Automated Multi-Agents End-to-End GPU Programing Framework with Rubric-based Agentic Reinforcement Learning

Mar 3, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Kernelbench Success rate Not Reported
Beyond the Resumé: A Rubric-Aware Automatic Interview System for Information Elicitation

Mar 2, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Cost Calibration
Document Reconstruction Unlocks Scalable Long-Context RLVR

Feb 9, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics LongBench Coherence 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
Cross-Cultural Expert-Level Art Critique Evaluation with Vision-Language Models

Jan 12, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Calibration
ScholarEval: Research Idea Evaluation Grounded in Literature

Oct 17, 2025

Yes Not Reported Scholareval Not Reported Not Reported
Automated Coding of Communication Data Using ChatGPT: Consistency Across Subgroups

Oct 23, 2025

Yes Human Eval , Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
Small Reward Models via Backward Inference

Feb 14, 2026

Yes Llm As Judge Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Toward LLM-Supported Automated Assessment of Critical Thinking Subskills

Oct 14, 2025

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Ice Cream Doesn't Cause Drowning: Benchmarking LLMs Against Statistical Pitfalls in Causal Inference

May 19, 2025

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
RM-R1: Reward Modeling as Reasoning

May 5, 2025

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal StitchCUDA: An Automated Multi-Agents End-to-End GP… Beyond the Resumé: A Rubric-Aware Automatic Intervi… Document Reconstruction Unlocks Scalable Long-Conte…
Human Feedback Rubric RatingRubric RatingRubric Rating
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks KernelbenchNot reportedLongBench
Metrics Success rateCostCoherence
Quality Controls Not reportedCalibrationNot reported
Rater Population UnknownDomain ExpertsDomain Experts
Annotation Unit Multi Dim RubricMulti Dim RubricMulti Dim Rubric
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. Beyond the Resumé: A Rubric-Aware Automatic Interview System for Information Elicitation

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: cost. Abstract: We present a system that leverages an LLM interviewer to.

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

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: rubric ratings. Abstract: Existing benchmarks assess perception without interpretation, and common evaluation proxies, such as automated metrics and.

  3. StitchCUDA: An Automated Multi-Agents End-to-End GPU Programing Framework with Rubric-based Agentic Reinforcement Learning

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: Kernelbench / success rate. Abstract: To fundamentally improve the Coder's.

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

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: rubric ratings. Focus: SWE-bench. Abstract: Then, we introduce Research-Factory, an automated pipeline that generates high-quality training.

  5. Automated Coding of Communication Data Using ChatGPT: Consistency Across Subgroups

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + rubric ratings. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Prior research has established that ChatGPT can be directly.

  6. Small Reward Models via Backward Inference

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge + rubric ratings. Abstract: However, the dominant LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm relies on the strong reasoning capabilities.

  7. Document Reconstruction Unlocks Scalable Long-Context RLVR

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: LongBench / coherence. Abstract: However, it often relies.

  8. ScholarEval: Research Idea Evaluation Grounded in Literature

    Adds evaluation protocol evidence with rubric ratings for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: rubric ratings. Focus: Scholareval. Abstract: Our evaluation shows that ScholarEval achieves significantly higher.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 18.2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • LLM-as-judge appears without enough inter-annotator agreement reporting.
  • 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

  • Rubric Rating (11)
  • Critique Edit (1)
  • Pairwise Preference (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (4)
  • Human Eval (1)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Kernelbench (1)
  • LongBench (1)
  • MLE Bench (1)
  • Paperbench (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (1)
  • Coherence (1)
  • Cost (1)
  • Success rate (1)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (5)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (2)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 100.0% · benchmarks 36.4% · metrics 36.4% · quality controls 18.2%.

Top Papers

  • StitchCUDA: An Automated Multi-Agents End-to-End GPU Programing Framework with Rubric-based Agentic Reinforcement Learning

    Shiyang Li, Zijian Zhang, Winson Chen, Yuebo Luo, Mingyi Hong · Mar 3, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Automatic Metrics Multi Agent

    To address the challenge, in this work, we propose StitchCUDA, a multi-agent framework for end-to-end GPU program generation, with three specialized agents: a Planner to orchestrate whole system design, a Coder dedicated to implementing it…

  • Beyond the Resumé: A Rubric-Aware Automatic Interview System for Information Elicitation

    Harry Stuart, Masahiro Kaneko, Timothy Baldwin · Mar 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Automatic Metrics

    Effective hiring is integral to the success of an organisation, but it is very challenging to find the most suitable candidates because expert evaluation (e.g.\ interviews conducted by a technical manager) are expensive to deploy at scale.

  • Document Reconstruction Unlocks Scalable Long-Context RLVR

    Yao Xiao, Lei Wang, Yue Deng, Guanzheng Chen, Ziqi Jin · Feb 9, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Automatic Metrics

    However, it often relies on gold-standard answers or explicit evaluation rubrics provided by powerful teacher models or human experts, which are costly and time-consuming.

  • Automated Coding of Communication Data Using ChatGPT: Consistency Across Subgroups

    Jiangang Hao, Wenju Cui, Patrick Kyllonen, Emily Kerzabi · Oct 23, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Human EvalAutomatic Metrics

    Prior research has established that ChatGPT can be directly instructed with coding rubrics to code the communication data and achieves accuracy comparable to human raters.

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

    Yue Liu, Zhiyuan Hu, Flood Sung, Jiaheng Zhang, Bryan Hooi · Feb 19, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Long Horizon

    Then, we introduce Research-Factory, an automated pipeline that generates high-quality training data by collecting research papers and constructing evaluation rubrics.

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

    Haorui Yu, Xuehang Wen, Fengrui Zhang, Qiufeng Yi · Jan 12, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric RatingCritique Edit

    Existing benchmarks assess perception without interpretation, and common evaluation proxies, such as automated metrics and LLM-judge averaging, are unreliable for culturally sensitive generative tasks.

  • Small Reward Models via Backward Inference

    Yike Wang, Faeze Brahman, Shangbin Feng, Teng Xiao, Hannaneh Hajishirzi · Feb 14, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Llm As Judge

    However, the dominant LLM-as-a-Judge paradigm relies on the strong reasoning capabilities of large models, while alternative approaches require reference responses or explicit rubrics, limiting flexibility and broader accessibility.

  • ScholarEval: Research Idea Evaluation Grounded in Literature

    Hanane Nour Moussa, Patrick Queiroz Da Silva, Daniel Adu-Ampratwum, Alyson East, Zitong Lu · Oct 17, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating

    As AI tools become increasingly common for research ideation, robust evaluation is critical to ensure the validity and usefulness of generated ideas.

  • Ice Cream Doesn't Cause Drowning: Benchmarking LLMs Against Statistical Pitfalls in Causal Inference

    Jin Du, Li Chen, Xun Xian, An Luo, Fangqiao Tian · May 19, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating

    Current benchmarks usually involve simplified tasks.

  • Toward LLM-Supported Automated Assessment of Critical Thinking Subskills

    Marisa C. Peczuh, Nischal Ashok Kumar, Ryan Baker, Blair Lehman, Danielle Eisenberg · Oct 14, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating

    As the world becomes increasingly saturated with AI-generated content, disinformation, and algorithmic persuasion, critical thinking - the capacity to evaluate evidence, detect unreliable claims, and exercise independent judgment - is…

  • RM-R1: Reward Modeling as Reasoning

    Xiusi Chen, Gaotang Li, Ziqi Wang, Bowen Jin, Cheng Qian · May 5, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise PreferenceRubric Rating

    Reward modeling is essential for aligning large language models with human preferences through reinforcement learning.

Related Hubs

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