Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Coding Papers (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 46 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 46 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: 46 Last published: Feb 15, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
CodingLast 30d

Researcher Quick Triage

This hub is best used for protocol triage and replication planning from abstract-level evidence. Quality band: Medium .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

46 / 46 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

6

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 6 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: 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

  • 54.3% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 54.3% 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 (2.2% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; 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

  • SWE-bench appears in 6.5% of hub papers (3/46); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • SWE-bench Verified appears in 6.5% of hub papers (3/46); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 21.7% of hub papers (10/46); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 17.4% of hub papers (8/46); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (54.3% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (4.3% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (26.1% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (56.5% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.7% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (32.6% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (54.3% of papers).
  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 58.7% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 4.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (21.7% coverage).
  • 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 (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
Team of Thoughts: Efficient Test-time Scaling of Agentic Systems through Orchestrated Tool Calling

Feb 18, 2026

Yes Not Reported LiveCodeBench Not Reported Calibration
Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence with 11B Active Parameters

Feb 11, 2026

Yes Not Reported LiveCodeBench , BrowseComp Latency , Cost Not Reported
Document Reconstruction Unlocks Scalable Long-Context RLVR

Feb 9, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics LongBench Coherence Not Reported
Can Large Language Models Replace Human Coders? Introducing ContentBench

Feb 23, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics ContentBench Agreement , Cost 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
ChartEditBench: Evaluating Grounded Multi-Turn Chart Editing in Multimodal Language Models

Feb 17, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Charteditbench Not Reported Not Reported
SparkMe: Adaptive Semi-Structured Interviewing for Qualitative Insight Discovery

Feb 24, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Cost Not Reported
From Pixels to Policies: Reinforcing Spatial Reasoning in Language Models for Content-Aware Layout Design

Feb 14, 2026

Yes Simulation Env Not Reported Latency Not Reported
PrivAct: Internalizing Contextual Privacy Preservation via Multi-Agent Preference Training

Feb 14, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Helpfulness Not Reported
MEDSYN: Benchmarking Multi-EviDence SYNthesis in Complex Clinical Cases for Multimodal Large Language Models

Feb 25, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
SurGo-R1: Benchmarking and Modeling Contextual Reasoning for Operative Zone in Surgical Video

Feb 25, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy 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… Team of Thoughts: Efficient Test-time Scaling of Ag… Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence wi…
Human Feedback Expert VerificationExpert VerificationPairwise Preference
Evaluation Modes Simulation EnvNot reportedNot reported
Benchmarks Ad BenchLiveCodeBenchLiveCodeBench, BrowseComp
Metrics Pass@1, Pass@3Not reportedLatency, Cost
Quality Controls Not reportedCalibrationNot reported
Rater Population Domain ExpertsDomain ExpertsDomain Experts
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. AgentDropoutV2: Optimizing Information Flow in Multi-Agent Systems via Test-Time Rectify-or-Reject Pruning

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: While Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) excel in complex reasoning, they suffer from the cascading.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  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. 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. Team of Thoughts: Efficient Test-time Scaling of Agentic Systems through Orchestrated Tool Calling

    Adds evaluation protocol evidence with expert verification for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: expert verification. Focus: LiveCodeBench. Abstract: Existing Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) typically rely on static,.

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

    Adds evaluation protocol evidence with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: pairwise preferences. Focus: LiveCodeBench / latency. Abstract: To reach frontier-level intelligence, we design.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 4.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (21.7% 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 (9)
  • Expert Verification (6)
  • Critique Edit (4)
  • Rubric Rating (3)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (25)
  • Simulation Env (9)
  • Human Eval (1)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • SWE Bench (3)
  • SWE Bench Verified (3)
  • LiveCodeBench (2)
  • MLE Bench (2)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (10)
  • Cost (8)
  • Latency (6)
  • Pass@1 (3)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (10)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)
  • Calibration (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 54.3% · benchmarks 26.1% · metrics 54.3% · quality controls 4.3%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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