Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Coding Papers (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 27, 2026). 34 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 27, 2026). 34 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: APPS. 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 31, 2026.

Papers: 34 Last published: Mar 31, 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%

34 / 34 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

7

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 7 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.

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 52.9% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by critique/edit feedback.
  • automatic metrics appears in 58.8% of papers in this hub.
  • APPS is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (2.9% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly multi-dimensional rubrics; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • APPS appears in 2.9% of hub papers (1/34); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • BFCL appears in 2.9% of hub papers (1/34); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 29.4% of hub papers (10/34); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 23.5% of hub papers (8/34); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (52.9% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.9% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.5% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (64.7% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.5% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (29.4% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (52.9% of papers).
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 52.9% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 5.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (23.5% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Stratify by benchmark (APPS vs BFCL) 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 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
Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Presentation and Hallucination in AI-written Papers

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Paperwrite Bench Not Reported Not Reported
Do Phone-Use Agents Respect Your Privacy?

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics APPS , Myphonebench Task success Not Reported
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
CounselReflect: A Toolkit for Auditing Mental-Health Dialogues

Mar 31, 2026

Yes Human Eval Not Reported Not Reported Adjudication
PRBench: End-to-end Paper Reproduction in Physics Research

Mar 29, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics , Simulation Env Not Reported Accuracy , Success rate Not Reported
LUDOBENCH: Evaluating LLM Behavioural Decision-Making Through Spot-Based Board Game Scenarios in Ludo

Apr 7, 2026

No
Not Reported
Simulation Env Ludobench Dice Not Reported
Dynamically Acquiring Text Content to Enable the Classification of Lesser-known Entities for Real-world Tasks

Apr 24, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported F1 Not Reported
QED-Nano: Teaching a Tiny Model to Prove Hard Theorems

Apr 6, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Inference cost Not Reported
Navigating Large-Scale Document Collections: MuDABench for Multi-Document Analytical QA

Apr 24, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Mudabench Accuracy 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
Training-Free Dynamic Upcycling of Expert Language Models

Mar 31, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
SHAPE: Unifying Safety, Helpfulness and Pedagogy for Educational LLMs

Apr 24, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Helpfulness Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Present… Do Phone-Use Agents Respect Your Privacy? When Users Change Their Mind: Evaluating Interrupti…
Human Feedback Rubric RatingPairwise PreferenceCritique Edit
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsSimulation Env
Benchmarks Paperwrite BenchAPPS, MyphonebenchWebArena, Interruptbench
Metrics Not reportedTask successNot reported
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit Multi Dim RubricUnknownUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. CounselReflect: A Toolkit for Auditing Mental-Health Dialogues

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: human evaluation + rubric ratings. Abstract: The system integrates two families of evaluation signals: (i) 12 model-based metrics.

  2. QDTraj: Exploration of Diverse Trajectory Primitives for Articulated Objects Robotic Manipulation

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: simulation environments. Abstract: Thanks to the latest advances in learning and robotics, domestic robots are beginning.

  3. SSG: Logit-Balanced Vocabulary Partitioning for LLM Watermarking

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: pairwise preferences. Abstract: A crucial step in the KGW method is random vocabulary partitioning, which enables.

  4. Dynamically Acquiring Text Content to Enable the Classification of Lesser-known Entities for Real-world Tasks

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: f1. Abstract: Existing Natural Language Processing (NLP) resources often lack.

  5. 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.

  6. PRBench: End-to-end Paper Reproduction in Physics Research

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: All tasks are contributed by domain.

  7. Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Presentation and Hallucination in AI-written Papers

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: Paperwrite-Bench / cost. Abstract: PaperRecon disentangles the evaluation.

  8. LUDOBENCH: Evaluating LLM Behavioural Decision-Making Through Spot-Based Board Game Scenarios in Ludo

    Adds simulation environments for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: simulation environments. Focus: Ludobench / dice. Abstract: We introduce LudoBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM strategic reasoning.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 5.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (23.5% 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 (6)
  • Expert Verification (4)
  • Rubric Rating (4)
  • Pairwise Preference (3)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (20)
  • Simulation Env (5)
  • Human Eval (2)

Top Benchmarks

  • APPS (1)
  • BFCL (1)
  • GSM8K (1)
  • HLE (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (10)
  • Cost (8)
  • Inference cost (2)
  • Latency (2)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (8)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)
  • Calibration (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 52.9% · benchmarks 23.5% · metrics 64.7% · quality controls 5.9%.

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.