Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Coding Papers (Last 60 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 128 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 128 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: Calibration. 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: 128 Last published: Feb 15, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
CodingLast 60d

Researcher Quick Triage

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

Analysis blocks below are computed from the currently loaded sample (60 of 128 total papers in this hub).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

16

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

1

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 16 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 1 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 9 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

  • 57.8% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 57.8% of papers in this hub.
  • SWE-bench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (3.9% 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 3.9% of hub papers (5/128); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • SWE-bench Verified appears in 3.1% of hub papers (4/128); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 28.9% of hub papers (37/128); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 19.5% of hub papers (25/128); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (57.8% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (7% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (64.1% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (19.5% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (33.6% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (57.8% of papers).
  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 52.3% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (19.5% coverage).

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.
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 Cost Not Reported
Modeling and Benchmarking Spoken Dialogue Rewards with Modality and Colloquialness

Mar 16, 2026

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

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics APPS , Myphonebench Task success Not Reported
CausalRM: Causal-Theoretic Reward Modeling for RLHF from Observational User Feedbacks

Mar 19, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Harmbench Cost Not Reported
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
Is this Idea Novel? An Automated Benchmark for Judgment of Research Ideas

Mar 11, 2026

Yes Human Eval Rinobench Not Reported Gold Questions
Jailbreak Foundry: From Papers to Runnable Attacks for Reproducible Benchmarking

Feb 27, 2026

Yes Llm As Judge AdvBench , Jbf Eval Success rate , Jailbreak success rate Not Reported
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
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
$V_1$: Unifying Generation and Self-Verification for Parallel Reasoners

Mar 4, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics SWE Bench , AIME Pass@1 Not Reported
Can Large Language Models Replace Human Coders? Introducing ContentBench

Feb 23, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics ContentBench Agreement , Cost 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… Modeling and Benchmarking Spoken Dialogue Rewards w… Do Phone-Use Agents Respect Your Privacy?
Human Feedback Rubric RatingPairwise PreferencePairwise Preference
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks Paperwrite BenchEsdr BenchAPPS, Myphonebench
Metrics CostAccuracyTask success
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit Multi Dim RubricPairwiseUnknown
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. Is this Idea Novel? An Automated Benchmark for Judgment of Research Ideas

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: human evaluation + rubric ratings. Focus: Rinobench. Abstract: Yet, evaluation of these approaches remains largely inconsistent and is.

  3. 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.

  4. bec7b17f-6d39-4bf5-bf1d-fbeece542225

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison.

  5. 86719bf1-388e-46a1-acb2-63c07103a8c0

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison.

  6. 88cb4318-cbbe-4401-8783-da7d166744b9

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison.

  7. Jailbreak Foundry: From Papers to Runnable Attacks for Reproducible Benchmarking

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge + red-team protocols. Focus: AdvBench / success rate. Abstract: This system enables a standardized AdvBench.

  8. AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertising Analytics Benchmark for LLM Agents

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: simulation environments + expert verification. Focus: Ad-Bench / pass@1. Abstract: While Large Language Model (LLM) agents.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (19.5% 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

  • Pairwise Preference (30)
  • Expert Verification (14)
  • Rubric Rating (13)
  • Critique Edit (12)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (74)
  • Simulation Env (13)
  • Human Eval (6)
  • Llm As Judge (5)

Top Benchmarks

  • SWE Bench (5)
  • SWE Bench Verified (4)
  • LiveCodeBench (3)
  • MLE Bench (2)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (37)
  • Cost (25)
  • Latency (11)
  • Pass@1 (6)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (24)
  • Mixed (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (5)
  • Adjudication (2)
  • Gold Questions (1)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 75.0% · benchmarks 40.0% · metrics 71.7% · quality controls 15.0%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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