Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.AI Papers (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 1479 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 1479 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: DROP. 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 Mar 22, 2026.

Papers: 1,479 Last published: Mar 22, 2026 Global RSS
Cs.AILast 30d

Researcher Quick Triage

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

Analysis blocks below are computed from the currently loaded sample (60 of 1,479 total papers in this hub).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

21

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

1

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 21 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 1 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 6 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.

Currently showing only replication-ready papers in ranking and matrix sections (21 papers).

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 5.8% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 17.4% of papers in this hub.
  • DROP 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 (1.5% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • DROP appears in 0.7% of hub papers (10/1479); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • GSM8K appears in 0.5% of hub papers (8/1479); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 12.8% of hub papers (190/1479); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 6.6% of hub papers (97/1479); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.8% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (2% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.8% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (29.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (4.8% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (7% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.

Known Gaps

  • Only 2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (4.8% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (DROP vs GSM8K) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.
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
TraceSafe: A Systematic Assessment of LLM Guardrails on Multi-Step Tool-Calling Trajectories

Apr 8, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Tracesafe Bench Accuracy Not Reported
SODIUM: From Open Web Data to Queryable Databases

Mar 19, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Sodium Bench Accuracy Not Reported
Xpertbench: Expert Level Tasks with Rubrics-Based Evaluation

Mar 27, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Xpertbench Success rate Not Reported
When AI Meets Early Childhood Education: Large Language Models as Assessment Teammates in Chinese Preschools

Mar 25, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Interaction2eval Agreement , Cost Not Reported
Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Presentation and Hallucination in AI-written Papers

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Paperwrite Bench Cost Not Reported
Stabilizing Rubric Integration Training via Decoupled Advantage Normalization

Mar 27, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Olympiadbench Accuracy Not Reported
FairMed-XGB: A Bayesian-Optimised Multi-Metric Framework with Explainability for Demographic Equity in Critical Healthcare Data

Mar 16, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics DROP Accuracy , Auroc Not Reported
Do Phone-Use Agents Respect Your Privacy?

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics APPS , Myphonebench Task success Not Reported
Stabilizing Iterative Self-Training with Verified Reasoning via Symbolic Recursive Self-Alignment

Mar 23, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics GSM8K Accuracy Not Reported
DSPA: Dynamic SAE Steering for Data-Efficient Preference Alignment

Mar 23, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics MT Bench , AlpacaEval Accuracy Not Reported
PAVE: Premise-Aware Validation and Editing for Retrieval-Augmented LLMs

Mar 21, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Post Retrieval Accuracy 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… TraceSafe: A Systematic Assessment of LLM Guardrail… SODIUM: From Open Web Data to Queryable Databases
Human Feedback DemonstrationsRed TeamExpert Verification
Evaluation Modes Human Eval, Llm As JudgeAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks WebArena, ToolBenchTracesafe BenchSodium Bench
Metrics Precision, Pass@1AccuracyAccuracy
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownDomain Experts
Annotation Unit TrajectoryTrajectoryUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 82c9c9b6-09f7-47af-ba07-57e833fcbe2c

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

  2. 68a509c8-38a3-477c-8470-d42b5b6c7e08

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

  3. 69556312-33d0-46c5-a63a-1fefe70dc0b5

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

  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. LLM Essay Scoring Under Holistic and Analytic Rubrics: Prompt Effects and Bias

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + rubric ratings. Focus: kappa. Abstract: In particular, we observe large and stable negative directional.

  6. Blinded Radiologist and LLM-Based Evaluation of LLM-Generated Japanese Translations of Chest CT Reports: Comparative Study

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge + pairwise preferences. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the educational suitability of LLM-generated Japanese.

  7. VehicleMemBench: An Executable Benchmark for Multi-User Long-Term Memory in In-Vehicle Agents

    Adds simulation environments with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: simulation environments + pairwise preferences. Focus: Vehiclemembench. Abstract: This evolution requires agents to continuously.

  8. 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.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (4.8% 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

  • Pairwise Preference (40)
  • Expert Verification (16)
  • Rubric Rating (15)
  • Critique Edit (8)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (257)
  • Simulation Env (32)
  • Llm As Judge (17)
  • Human Eval (11)

Top Benchmarks

  • DROP (10)
  • GSM8K (8)
  • MMLU (8)
  • WebArena (4)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (190)
  • Cost (97)
  • Precision (36)
  • F1 (34)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (69)
  • Mixed (2)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (22)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (6)
  • Gold Questions (3)
  • Adjudication (2)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 80.0% · benchmarks 43.3% · metrics 76.7% · quality controls 10.0%.

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.