Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

General + Critique Edit Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 15 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequently cited benchmark: AIME. 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 26, 2026.

Papers: 15 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
GeneralCritique Edit

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 15 papers for General + Critique Edit Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, human evaluation, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on AIME, Rebuttalbench and metric focus on accuracy, cost. Use the grounded sections below to prioritize reproducible protocol choices, benchmark-matched comparisons, and judge-vs-human evaluation checks.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

Protocol Takeaways

Benchmark Interpretation

  • AIME appears in 6.7% of hub papers (1/15); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Rebuttalbench appears in 6.7% of hub papers (1/15); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 13.3% of hub papers (2/15); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 13.3% of hub papers (2/15); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Maintain strength on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is strong (100% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (33.3% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

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

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (33.3% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Towards Better RL Training Data Utilization via Second-Order Rollout

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  2. 2. Beyond Refusal: Probing the Limits of Agentic Self-Correction for Semantic Sensitive Information

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  3. 3. CAMEL: Confidence-Gated Reflection for Reward Modeling

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  4. 4. RebuttalAgent: Strategic Persuasion in Academic Rebuttal via Theory of Mind

    Include a human-eval paper to anchor calibration against automated judge settings.

  5. 5. Tool-Aware Planning in Contact Center AI: Evaluating LLMs through Lineage-Guided Query Decomposition

    Adds automatic metrics with critique/edit feedback for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Large Language Models and Impossible Language Acquisition: "False Promise" or an Overturn of our Current Perspective towards AI

    Adds automatic metrics with critique/edit feedback for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. VULCA-Bench: A Multicultural Vision-Language Benchmark for Evaluating Cultural Understanding

    Adds automatic metrics with critique/edit feedback for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Reward Modeling from Natural Language Human Feedback

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (20% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=13

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=13, right_only=1

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

human_eval vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=1

0 papers use both Human Eval and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

AIME

Coverage: 1 papers (6.7%)

1 papers (6.7%) mention AIME.

Examples: Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback

Benchmark Brief

Rebuttalbench

Coverage: 1 papers (6.7%)

1 papers (6.7%) mention Rebuttalbench.

Examples: RebuttalAgent: Strategic Persuasion in Academic Rebuttal via Theory of Mind

Benchmark Brief

Retrieval

Coverage: 1 papers (6.7%)

1 papers (6.7%) mention Retrieval.

Examples: Multimodal Peer Review Simulation with Actionable To-Do Recommendations for Community-Aware Manuscript Revisions

Metric Brief

accuracy

Coverage: 2 papers (13.3%)

2 papers (13.3%) mention accuracy.

Examples: CAMEL: Confidence-Gated Reflection for Reward Modeling , Error-Aware Knowledge Distillation via Targeted Revision for Customer-Service Summarization

Metric Brief

inference cost

Coverage: 1 papers (6.7%)

1 papers (6.7%) mention inference cost.

Examples: CAMEL: Confidence-Gated Reflection for Reward Modeling

Top Papers

Related Hubs