Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.CL + Tool Use Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 12 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: Retrieval. 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 Feb 26, 2026.

Papers: 12 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Cs.CLTool Use

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 12 papers for CS.CL + Tool Use Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, MMLU and metric focus on cost, latency. Use the grounded sections below to prioritize reproducible protocol choices, benchmark-matched comparisons, and judge-vs-human evaluation checks.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

Protocol Takeaways

Benchmark Interpretation

  • Retrieval appears in 25% of hub papers (3/12); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MMLU appears in 16.7% of hub papers (2/12); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

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

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 30% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is strong (66.7% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (58.3% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (66.7% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (58.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

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

Papers with known annotation unit

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. OmniGAIA: Towards Native Omni-Modal AI Agents

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

  2. 2. Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference

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

  3. 3. A Benchmark for Deep Information Synthesis

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

  4. 4. OpaqueToolsBench: Learning Nuances of Tool Behavior Through Interaction

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. MCPShield: A Security Cognition Layer for Adaptive Trust Calibration in Model Context Protocol Agents

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Zooming without Zooming: Region-to-Image Distillation for Fine-Grained Multimodal Perception

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence with 11B Active Parameters

    Adds simulation environments with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. RoPE-LIME: RoPE-Space Locality + Sparse-K Sampling for Efficient LLM Attribution

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

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 Links

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=1, left_only=0, right_only=9

1 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=10, right_only=2

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs human_eval

both=0, left_only=2, right_only=1

0 papers use both Simulation Env and Human Eval.

Benchmark Brief

BrowseComp

Coverage: 1 papers (8.3%)

1 papers (8.3%) mention BrowseComp.

Examples: Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence with 11B Active Parameters

Metric Brief

accuracy

Coverage: 1 papers (8.3%)

1 papers (8.3%) mention accuracy.

Examples: Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference

Most Cited In This Hub

Fast path to methods with the strongest citation traction in this scope.

Papers: OmniGAIA: Towards Native Omni-Modal AI Agents , Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference , A Benchmark for Deep Information Synthesis

Best Protocol Detail

Papers with explicit rater/unit metadata and quality-control signals for reproducibility.

Papers: OmniGAIA: Towards Native Omni-Modal AI Agents , Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference , A Benchmark for Deep Information Synthesis

Top Papers

Related Hubs