Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Critique Edit Papers (Last 45 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 12 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 12 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Scalar. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: ContentBench. 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: 12 Last published: Feb 15, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Critique EditLast 45d

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%

12 / 12 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

2

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 2 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.

Why This Matters (Expanded)

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 100% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by critique/edit feedback.
  • automatic metrics appears in 41.7% of papers in this hub.
  • ContentBench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (8.3% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly scalar scoring; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • ContentBench appears in 8.3% of hub papers (1/12); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • HLE appears in 8.3% of hub papers (1/12); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 16.7% of hub papers (2/12); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 16.7% of hub papers (2/12); 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 (8.3% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (100% of papers).

Known Gaps

  • Only 8.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.3% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (16.7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Stratify by benchmark (ContentBench vs HLE) 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
HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam

Feb 15, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics HLE Accuracy Adjudication
Can Large Language Models Replace Human Coders? Introducing ContentBench

Feb 23, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics ContentBench Agreement , Cost Not Reported
RebuttalAgent: Strategic Persuasion in Academic Rebuttal via Theory of Mind

Jan 22, 2026

Yes Human Eval Rebuttalbench Not Reported 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
CAMEL: Confidence-Gated Reflection for Reward Modeling

Feb 24, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Cost Not Reported
Unlocking Reasoning Capability on Machine Translation in Large Language Models

Feb 16, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Towards Better RL Training Data Utilization via Second-Order Rollout

Feb 26, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Beyond Refusal: Probing the Limits of Agentic Self-Correction for Semantic Sensitive Information

Feb 25, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Large Language Models and Impossible Language Acquisition: "False Promise" or an Overturn of our Current Perspective towards AI

Feb 9, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
The logic of KM belief update is contained in the logic of AGM belief revision

Feb 26, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Natural Language Declarative Prompting (NLD-P): A Modular Governance Method for Prompt Design Under Model Drift

Feb 26, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Tool-Aware Planning in Contact Center AI: Evaluating LLMs through Lineage-Guided Query Decomposition

Feb 16, 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 HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structu… Can Large Language Models Replace Human Coders? Int… RebuttalAgent: Strategic Persuasion in Academic Reb…
Human Feedback Expert Verification, Critique EditCritique EditPairwise Preference, Critique Edit
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsHuman Eval
Benchmarks HLEContentBenchRebuttalbench
Metrics AccuracyAgreement, CostNot reported
Quality Controls AdjudicationNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population Domain ExpertsUnknownUnknown
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. The logic of KM belief update is contained in the logic of AGM belief revision

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: critique/edit feedback. Abstract: For each axiom of KM belief update we provide a corresponding axiom in a modal.

  2. Natural Language Declarative Prompting (NLD-P): A Modular Governance Method for Prompt Design Under Model Drift

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: critique/edit feedback. Abstract: The rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs) has transformed prompt engineering from a localized.

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

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: critique/edit feedback. Abstract: Reinforcement Learning (RL) has empowered Large Language Models (LLMs) with strong reasoning capabilities, but vanilla.

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

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + pairwise preferences. Focus: Rebuttalbench. Abstract: For reliable and efficient automated evaluation, we further develop.

  5. HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: HLE / accuracy. Abstract: Overall, HLE-Verified improves HLE-style evaluations by reducing.

  6. From Pixels to Policies: Reinforcing Spatial Reasoning in Language Models for Content-Aware Layout Design

    Adds simulation environments with critique/edit feedback for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: simulation environments + critique/edit feedback. Focus: latency. Abstract: We introduce LaySPA, a reinforcement learning.

  7. Can Large Language Models Replace Human Coders? Introducing ContentBench

    Adds automatic metrics with critique/edit feedback for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + critique/edit feedback. Focus: ContentBench / agreement. Abstract: Among the 59 evaluated.

  8. CAMEL: Confidence-Gated Reflection for Reward Modeling

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + pairwise preferences. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Reward models play a fundamental role.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 8.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.3% 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 (12)
  • Pairwise Preference (2)
  • Expert Verification (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (5)
  • Human Eval (1)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • ContentBench (1)
  • HLE (1)
  • Rebuttalbench (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (2)
  • Cost (2)
  • Agreement (1)
  • Coherence (1)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (1)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 100.0% · benchmarks 25.0% · metrics 33.3% · quality controls 8.3%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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