Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Coding Papers (Last 90 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 50 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 50 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: 50 Last published: Feb 15, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
CodingLast 90d

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%

50 / 50 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.
  • 4 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

  • 58% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 56% 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 rater calibration (4% 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% of hub papers (3/50); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • SWE-bench Verified appears in 6% of hub papers (3/50); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 22% of hub papers (11/50); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 16% of hub papers (8/50); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (58% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (8% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (26% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (58% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (28% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (34% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (58% of papers).
  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 56% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 8% 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 (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
CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cricket Analytics

Dec 26, 2025

Yes Automatic Metrics DROP , BIRD Accuracy Gold Questions
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

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating… AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertisin… Team of Thoughts: Efficient Test-time Scaling of Ag…
Human Feedback Expert VerificationExpert VerificationExpert Verification
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsSimulation EnvNot reported
Benchmarks DROP, BIRDAd BenchLiveCodeBench
Metrics AccuracyPass@1, Pass@3Not reported
Quality Controls Gold QuestionsNot reportedCalibration
Rater Population Domain ExpertsDomain ExpertsDomain Experts
Annotation Unit UnknownTrajectoryUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 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.

  2. AgentDropoutV2: Optimizing Information Flow in Multi-Agent Systems via Test-Time Rectify-or-Reject Pruning

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: While Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) excel in complex reasoning, they suffer from.

  3. Test-Time Scaling with Diffusion Language Models via Reward-Guided Stitching

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Reasoning with large language models often benefits from generating multiple chains-of-thought,.

  4. Hierarchy-of-Groups Policy Optimization for Long-Horizon Agentic Tasks

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: simulation environments. Focus: ALFWorld. Abstract: Group-based reinforcement learning (RL), such as GRPO, has advanced the capabilities.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cricket Analytics

    Adds automatic metrics with expert verification for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: DROP / accuracy. Abstract: We evaluate six state-of-the-art.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 8% 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

  • Pairwise Preference (10)
  • Expert Verification (8)
  • Critique Edit (5)
  • Rubric Rating (4)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (28)
  • 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 (11)
  • Cost (8)
  • Latency (6)
  • Pass@1 (3)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (14)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (2)
  • Adjudication (1)
  • Gold Questions (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 58.0% · benchmarks 26.0% · metrics 56.0% · quality controls 8.0%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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