Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.AI Human Feedback And Eval Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 3909 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 3909 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 Feb 15, 2026.

Papers: 3,909 Last published: Feb 15, 2026 Global RSS
Cs.AI

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 3,909 total papers in this hub).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

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

Replication-Ready Set

18

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

2

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 18 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 2 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 20 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 (18 papers).

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 9.1% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 22.5% of papers in this hub.
  • DROP is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • 2 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 0.6% of hub papers (23/3909); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • GSM8K appears in 0.4% of hub papers (16/3909); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 11.6% of hub papers (455/3909); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 5.3% of hub papers (206/3909); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (2.4% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.2% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (25.6% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.6% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.1% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 2.4% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.6% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (8.1% 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
PoSh: Using Scene Graphs To Guide LLMs-as-a-Judge For Detailed Image Descriptions

Oct 21, 2025

Yes Human Eval , Llm As Judge CAPArena Spearman Not Reported
SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM Judging

Feb 13, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics MT Bench , LMSYS Chatbot Arena Error rate Calibration
CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cricket Analytics

Dec 26, 2025

Yes Automatic Metrics DROP , BIRD Accuracy Gold Questions
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
AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertising Analytics Benchmark for LLM Agents

Feb 15, 2026

Yes Simulation Env Ad Bench Pass@1 , Pass@3 Not Reported
PanCanBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Pancreatic Oncology

Mar 2, 2026

Yes Llm As Judge , Automatic Metrics Pancanbench , Healthbench Accuracy Not Reported
\$OneMillion-Bench: How Far are Language Agents from Human Experts?

Mar 9, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Onemillion Bench Accuracy , Coherence Not Reported
Jailbreak Foundry: From Papers to Runnable Attacks for Reproducible Benchmarking

Feb 27, 2026

Yes Llm As Judge AdvBench , Jbf Eval Success rate , Jailbreak success 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… PoSh: Using Scene Graphs To Guide LLMs-as-a-Judge F… SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM J…
Human Feedback DemonstrationsRubric RatingPairwise Preference
Evaluation Modes Human Eval, Llm As JudgeHuman Eval, Llm As JudgeAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks WebArena, ToolBenchCAPArenaMT Bench, LMSYS Chatbot Arena
Metrics Precision, Pass@1SpearmanError rate
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedCalibration
Rater Population UnknownDomain ExpertsUnknown
Annotation Unit TrajectoryMulti Dim RubricPairwise
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. Is this Idea Novel? An Automated Benchmark for Judgment of Research Ideas

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: human evaluation + rubric ratings. Focus: Rinobench. Abstract: Yet, evaluation of these approaches remains largely inconsistent and is.

  2. Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: brier score. Abstract: As LLM-powered agents have been used for high-stakes decision-making,.

  3. An artificial intelligence framework for end-to-end rare disease phenotyping from clinical notes using large language models

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: f1. Abstract: Phenotyping is fundamental to rare disease diagnosis, but manual curation.

  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. Jailbreak Foundry: From Papers to Runnable Attacks for Reproducible Benchmarking

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge + red-team protocols. Focus: AdvBench / success rate. Abstract: This system enables a standardized AdvBench.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 2.4% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.6% 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 (164)
  • Expert Verification (53)
  • Demonstrations (48)
  • Rubric Rating (47)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (878)
  • Simulation Env (134)
  • Llm As Judge (55)
  • Human Eval (46)

Top Benchmarks

  • DROP (23)
  • GSM8K (16)
  • AIME (12)
  • MMLU (11)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (455)
  • Cost (206)
  • Precision (87)
  • Latency (83)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (248)
  • Mixed (9)
  • Crowd (2)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (60)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (20)
  • Adjudication (13)
  • Gold Questions (8)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 98.3% · benchmarks 50.0% · metrics 73.3% · quality controls 33.3%.

Top Papers

  • AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertising Analytics Benchmark for LLM Agents

    Lingxiang Hu, Yiding Sun, Tianle Xia, Wenwei Li, Ming Xu · Feb 15, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Expert Verification Simulation Env Long Horizon

    While Large Language Model (LLM) agents have achieved remarkable progress in complex reasoning tasks, evaluating their performance in real-world environments has become a critical problem.

  • AgentHER: Hindsight Experience Replay for LLM Agent Trajectory Relabeling

    Liang Ding · Mar 22, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Demonstrations Human EvalLlm As Judge Long Horizon

    LLM agents fail on the majority of real-world tasks -- GPT-4o succeeds on fewer than 15% of WebArena navigation tasks and below 55% pass@1 on ToolBench (Zhou et al., 2024; Qin et al., 2024) -- yet every failed trajectory is routinely…

  • Let's Think in Two Steps: Mitigating Agreement Bias in MLLMs with Self-Grounded Verification

    Moises Andrade, Joonhyuk Cha, Brandon Ho, Vriksha Srihari, Karmesh Yadav · Jul 15, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic MetricsSimulation Env Long Horizon

    We evaluate MLLM verifiers across web navigation, computer use, and robotics, spanning 13+ models, 28+ designs, and thousands of trajectories from diverse agents.

  • LMUnit: Fine-grained Evaluation with Natural Language Unit Tests

    Jon Saad-Falcon, Rajan Vivek, William Berrios, Nandita Shankar Naik, Matija Franklin · Dec 17, 2024 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Human Eval

    We introduce natural language unit tests, a paradigm that decomposes response quality into explicit, testable criteria, along with a unified scoring model, LMUnit, which combines multi-objective training across preferences, direct ratings,…

  • PanCanBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Pancreatic Oncology

    Yimin Zhao, Sheela R. Damle, Simone E. Dekker, Scott Geng, Karly Williams Silva · Mar 2, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric RatingExpert Verification Llm As JudgeAutomatic Metrics

    Large language models (LLMs) have achieved expert-level performance on standardized examinations, yet multiple-choice accuracy poorly reflects real-world clinical utility and safety.

  • PoSh: Using Scene Graphs To Guide LLMs-as-a-Judge For Detailed Image Descriptions

    Amith Ananthram, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Lorena A. Bradford, Julia Demarest, Adam Purvis · Oct 21, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Human EvalLlm As Judge

    In this work, we introduce PoSh, a metric for detailed image description that uses scene graphs as structured rubrics to guide LLMs-as-a-Judge, producing aggregate scores grounded in fine-grained errors (e.g.

  • \$OneMillion-Bench: How Far are Language Agents from Human Experts?

    Qianyu Yang, Yang Liu, Jiaqi Li, Jun Bai, Hao Chen · Mar 9, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Automatic Metrics Tool Use

    To this end, we introduce \OneMillion-Bench \OneMillion-Bench, a benchmark of 400 expert-curated tasks spanning Law, Finance, Industry, Healthcare, and Natural Science, built to evaluate agents across economically consequential scenarios.

  • Jailbreak Foundry: From Papers to Runnable Attacks for Reproducible Benchmarking

    Zhicheng Fang, Jingjie Zheng, Chenxu Fu, Wei Xu · Feb 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Red Team Llm As Judge Multi Agent

    Jailbreak techniques for large language models (LLMs) evolve faster than benchmarks, making robustness estimates stale and difficult to compare across papers due to drift in datasets, harnesses, and judging protocols.

  • SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM Judging

    Sher Badshah, Ali Emami, Hassan Sajjad · Feb 13, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges to replace costly human preference labels in pairwise evaluation.

  • CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cricket Analytics

    Vaibhav Devraj, Dhruv Kumar, Jagat Sesh Challa, Parth Agarwal, Navya Kommuri · Dec 26, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Expert Verification Automatic Metrics

    To investigate this potential capability gap, we present CricBench, a comprehensive benchmark suite for evaluating LLMs on specialized cricket data.

  • Don't Pass@k: A Bayesian Framework for Large Language Model Evaluation

    Mohsen Hariri, Amirhossein Samandar, Michael Hinczewski, Vipin Chaudhary · Oct 5, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Automatic MetricsSimulation Env

    We present a principled Bayesian evaluation framework that replaces Pass@k and average accuracy over N trials (avg@N) with posterior estimates of a model's underlying success probability and credible intervals, yielding stable rankings and…

  • TraceSafe: A Systematic Assessment of LLM Guardrails on Multi-Step Tool-Calling Trajectories

    Yen-Shan Chen, Sian-Yao Huang, Cheng-Lin Yang, Yun-Nung Chen · Apr 8, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Red Team Automatic Metrics Long Horizon

    As large language models (LLMs) evolve from static chatbots into autonomous agents, the primary vulnerability surface shifts from final outputs to intermediate execution traces.

  • SODIUM: From Open Web Data to Queryable Databases

    Chuxuan Hu, Philip Li, Maxwell Yang, Daniel Kang · Mar 19, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Expert Verification Automatic Metrics Multi Agent

    Existing systems struggle with SODIUM tasks: we evaluate 6 advanced AI agents on SODIUM-Bench, with the strongest baseline achieving only 46.5% accuracy.

  • Elo-Evolve: A Co-evolutionary Framework for Language Model Alignment

    Jing Zhao, Ting Zhen, Junwei Bao, Hongfei Jiang, Yang Song · Feb 14, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics Multi Agent

    Current alignment methods for Large Language Models (LLMs) rely on compressing vast amounts of human preference data into static, absolute reward functions, leading to data scarcity, noise sensitivity, and training instability.

  • Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks

    Thomas Kwa, Ben West, Joel Becker, Amy Deng, Katharyn Garcia · Mar 18, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Expert Verification Automatic Metrics Tool Use

    Despite rapid progress on AI benchmarks, the real-world meaning of benchmark performance remains unclear.

  • Xpertbench: Expert Level Tasks with Rubrics-Based Evaluation

    Xue Liu, Xin Ma, Yuxin Ma, Yongchang Peng, Duo Wang · Mar 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric RatingExpert Verification Automatic Metrics

    To bridge this gap, we present XpertBench, a high-fidelity benchmark engineered to assess LLMs across authentic professional domains.

  • When AI Meets Early Childhood Education: Large Language Models as Assessment Teammates in Chinese Preschools

    Xingming Li, Runke Huang, Yanan Bao, Yuye Jin, Yuru Jiao · Mar 25, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Automatic Metrics

    In this paper, we investigate whether AI can serve as a scalable assessment teammate by extracting structured quality indicators and validating their alignment with human expert judgments.

  • QuarkMedBench: A Real-World Scenario Driven Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models

    Yao Wu, Kangping Yin, Liang Dong, Zhenxin Ma, Shuting Xu · Mar 14, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Automatic Metrics

    To bridge this gap, we introduce QuarkMedBench, an ecologically valid benchmark tailored for real-world medical LLM assessment.

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.