Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Critique Edit Papers (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 17, 2026). 18 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 17, 2026). 18 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequent quality control: Inter Annotator Agreement Reported. Frequently cited benchmark: GSM8K. 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 Apr 1, 2026.

Papers: 18 Last published: Apr 1, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Critique EditLast 30d

Researcher Quick Triage

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

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

18 / 18 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

1

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 1 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 0 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 1 papers report explicit quality controls (calibration/adjudication/IAA).

Primary action: Use this page for scouting only; collect additional papers before attempting replication-critical comparisons.

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 100% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by critique/edit feedback.
  • automatic metrics appears in 27.8% of papers in this hub.
  • GSM8K is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is inter-annotator agreement reporting (5.6% 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 a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • GSM8K appears in 5.6% of hub papers (1/18); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Interruptbench appears in 5.6% of hub papers (1/18); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 22.2% of hub papers (4/18); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • agreement is reported in 5.6% of hub papers (1/18); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

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

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (22.2% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.8% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (22.2% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (100% of papers).
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 27.8% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 5.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.1% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (22.2% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Stratify by benchmark (GSM8K vs Interruptbench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and agreement.
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
PAVE: Premise-Aware Validation and Editing for Retrieval-Augmented LLMs

Mar 21, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Post Retrieval Accuracy Not Reported
ReasonScaffold: A Scaffolded Reasoning-based Annotation Protocol for Human-AI Co-Annotation

Mar 22, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Agreement Inter Annotator Agreement 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
RASPRef: Retrieval-Augmented Self-Supervised Prompt Refinement for Large Reasoning Models

Mar 27, 2026

Yes Not Reported GSM8K Not Reported Not Reported
Kernel-Smith: A Unified Recipe for Evolutionary Kernel Optimization

Mar 30, 2026

Yes Not Reported Kernelbench Not Reported Not Reported
How Much LLM Does a Self-Revising Agent Actually Need?

Apr 8, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported F1 , Win rate Not Reported
Can Large Language Models Self-Correct in Medical Question Answering? An Exploratory Study

Mar 31, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
BeliefShift: Benchmarking Temporal Belief Consistency and Opinion Drift in LLM Agents

Mar 25, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Coherence Not Reported
EvoIdeator: Evolving Scientific Ideas through Checklist-Grounded Reinforcement Learning

Mar 23, 2026

Yes Llm As Judge Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
The Ultimate Tutorial for AI-driven Scale Development in Generative Psychometrics: Releasing AIGENIE from its Bottle

Mar 30, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Optimsyn: Influence-Guided Rubrics Optimization for Synthetic Data Generation

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Adaptive Robust Estimator for Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning

Mar 23, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal PAVE: Premise-Aware Validation and Editing for Retr… ReasonScaffold: A Scaffolded Reasoning-based Annota… When Users Change Their Mind: Evaluating Interrupti…
Human Feedback Critique EditCritique EditCritique Edit
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsSimulation Env
Benchmarks Post RetrievalNot reportedWebArena, Interruptbench
Metrics AccuracyAccuracy, AgreementNot reported
Quality Controls Not reportedInter Annotator Agreement ReportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit UnknownUnknownUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. How Much LLM Does a Self-Revising Agent Actually Need?

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + critique/edit feedback. Focus: f1. Abstract: Recent LLM-based agents often place world modeling, planning, and reflection.

  2. From Hallucination to Structure Snowballing: The Alignment Tax of Constrained Decoding in LLM Reflection

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: critique/edit feedback. Abstract: Intrinsic self-correction in Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently fails in open-ended reasoning tasks due to.

  3. The Self Driving Portfolio: Agentic Architecture for Institutional Asset Management

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: critique/edit feedback. Abstract: Agentic AI shifts the investor's role from analytical execution to oversight.

  4. 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.

  5. RASPRef: Retrieval-Augmented Self-Supervised Prompt Refinement for Large Reasoning Models

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: critique/edit feedback. Focus: GSM8K. Abstract: To address this limitation, we introduce Retrieval-Augmented Self-Supervised Prompt Refinement (RASPRef), a.

  6. EvoIdeator: Evolving Scientific Ideas through Checklist-Grounded Reinforcement Learning

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge + rubric ratings. Abstract: Existing Reinforcement Learning (RL) paradigms often rely on rubric-based scalar rewards.

  7. ReasonScaffold: A Scaffolded Reasoning-based Annotation Protocol for Human-AI Co-Annotation

    Adds automatic metrics with critique/edit feedback for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + critique/edit feedback. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Human annotation is central to NLP.

  8. PAVE: Premise-Aware Validation and Editing for Retrieval-Augmented LLMs

    Adds automatic metrics with critique/edit feedback for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + critique/edit feedback. Focus: post-retrieval / accuracy. Abstract: Retrieval-augmented language models can.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 5.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.1% 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 (18)
  • Rubric Rating (2)
  • Pairwise Preference (1)
  • Rlaif Or Synthetic Feedback (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (5)
  • Llm As Judge (1)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • GSM8K (1)
  • Interruptbench (1)
  • Kernelbench (1)
  • Post Retrieval (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (4)
  • Agreement (1)
  • Coherence (1)
  • F1 (1)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (2)

Quality Controls

  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 100.0% · benchmarks 22.2% · metrics 27.8% · quality controls 5.6%.

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.