Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.AI + Demonstrations Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 48 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 48 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Simulation Env, Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: Windowsagentarena. Common metric signal: cost. 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 Mar 22, 2026.

Papers: 48 Last published: Mar 22, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Cs.AIDemonstrations

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%

48 / 48 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

1

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

1

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 1 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 1 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 demonstration data.
  • simulation environments appears in 20.8% of papers in this hub.
  • Windowsagentarena is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • 1 sampled papers report both human evaluation and LLM-as-judge, supporting direct agreement checks.
  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (2.1% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • Windowsagentarena appears in 4.2% of hub papers (2/48); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • ALFWorld appears in 2.1% of hub papers (1/48); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • cost is reported in 8.3% of hub papers (4/48); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • precision is reported in 4.2% of hub papers (2/48); 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 (2.1% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (18.8% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (20.8% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (22.9% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (100% of papers).
  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 31.3% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 2.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (20.8% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (22.9% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (Windowsagentarena vs ALFWorld) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both cost and precision.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.
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
AgentHER: Hindsight Experience Replay for LLM Agent Trajectory Relabeling

Mar 22, 2026

Yes Human Eval , Llm As Judge WebArena , ToolBench Precision , Pass@1 Not Reported
Meanings and Measurements: Multi-Agent Probabilistic Grounding for Vision-Language Navigation

Mar 19, 2026

Yes Simulation Env Mapg Bench Not Reported Not Reported
Dual-Modality Multi-Stage Adversarial Safety Training: Robustifying Multimodal Web Agents Against Cross-Modal Attacks

Mar 4, 2026

Yes Simulation Env MiniWoB++ Not Reported Not Reported
IA2: Alignment with ICL Activations Improves Supervised Fine-Tuning

Sep 26, 2025

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Cost Calibration
Automatic In-Domain Exemplar Construction and LLM-Based Refinement of Multi-LLM Expansions for Query Expansion

Feb 9, 2026

Yes Not Reported TREC Not Reported Not Reported
A Framework for Closed-Loop Robotic Assembly, Alignment and Self-Recovery of Precision Optical Systems

Mar 23, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Precision Not Reported
Orchestration-Free Customer Service Automation: A Privacy-Preserving and Flowchart-Guided Framework

Feb 17, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Cost Not Reported
Schema for In-Context Learning

Oct 14, 2025

Yes Not Reported GPQA Not Reported Not Reported
Watch and Learn: Learning to Use Computers from Online Videos

Oct 6, 2025

Yes Not Reported OSWorld , Windowsagentarena Not Reported Not Reported
Efficient Agent Training for Computer Use

May 20, 2025

Yes Not Reported Windowsagentarena Not Reported Not Reported
Structured Agent Distillation for Large Language Model

May 20, 2025

Yes Simulation Env ALFWorld , WebShop Not Reported Not Reported
Mastering Multi-Drone Volleyball through Hierarchical Co-Self-Play Reinforcement Learning

May 7, 2025

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Win rate Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal AgentHER: Hindsight Experience Replay for LLM Agent… Meanings and Measurements: Multi-Agent Probabilisti… Dual-Modality Multi-Stage Adversarial Safety Traini…
Human Feedback DemonstrationsDemonstrationsDemonstrations
Evaluation Modes Human Eval, Llm As JudgeSimulation EnvSimulation Env
Benchmarks WebArena, ToolBenchMapg BenchMiniWoB++
Metrics Precision, Pass@1Not reportedNot reported
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit TrajectoryUnknownUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. In-Context Learning in Speech Language Models: Analyzing the Role of Acoustic Features, Linguistic Structure, and Induction Heads

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: demonstration data. Abstract: In-Context Learning (ICL) has been extensively studied in text-only Language Models, but remains largely unexplored.

  2. Epistemic Blinding: An Inference-Time Protocol for Auditing Prior Contamination in LLM-Assisted Analysis

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: demonstration data. Abstract: This paper presents epistemic blinding in the context of an agentic system that uses large.

  3. A Framework for Closed-Loop Robotic Assembly, Alignment and Self-Recovery of Precision Optical Systems

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: demonstration data. Focus: precision. Abstract: Robotic automation has transformed scientific workflows in domains such as chemistry and materials.

  4. AgentHER: Hindsight Experience Replay for LLM Agent Trajectory Relabeling

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + demonstration data. Focus: WebArena / precision. Abstract: AgentHER realises this idea through a four-stage.

  5. VolleyBots: A Testbed for Multi-Drone Volleyball Game Combining Motion Control and Strategic Play

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: automatic metrics + demonstration data. Focus: win rate. Abstract: Robot sports, characterized by well-defined objectives, explicit rules,.

  6. Meanings and Measurements: Multi-Agent Probabilistic Grounding for Vision-Language Navigation

    Adds simulation environments with demonstration data for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: simulation environments + demonstration data. Focus: Mapg-Bench. Abstract: Robots collaborating with humans must convert.

  7. RAPTOR: A Foundation Policy for Quadrotor Control

    Adds simulation environments with demonstration data for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: simulation environments + demonstration data. Abstract: Humans are remarkably data-efficient when adapting to new.

  8. MoMaGen: Generating Demonstrations under Soft and Hard Constraints for Multi-Step Bimanual Mobile Manipulation

    Adds simulation environments with demonstration data for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: simulation environments + demonstration data. Abstract: Imitation learning from large-scale, diverse human demonstrations has.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 2.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (20.8% 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

  • Demonstrations (48)
  • Pairwise Preference (3)
  • Rubric Rating (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Simulation Env (10)
  • Automatic Metrics (8)
  • Human Eval (1)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Windowsagentarena (2)
  • ALFWorld (1)
  • DROP (1)
  • GPQA (1)

Top Metrics

  • Cost (4)
  • Precision (2)
  • Win rate (2)
  • Accuracy (1)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (9)
  • Mixed (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 100.0% · benchmarks 16.7% · metrics 18.8% · quality controls 2.1%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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