Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.CL Papers (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 635 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 635 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: LiveCodeBench. 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: 635 Last published: Feb 15, 2026 Global RSS
Cs.CLLast 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 635 total papers in this hub).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

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

Replication-Ready Set

12

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 12 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 0 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 10 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 (12 papers).

Why This Matters (Expanded)

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 13.5% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 40.3% of papers in this hub.
  • LiveCodeBench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (2.4% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • LiveCodeBench appears in 0.5% of hub papers (3/635); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • BrowseComp appears in 0.3% of hub papers (2/635); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 6% of hub papers (38/635); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 2.5% of hub papers (16/635); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (13.5% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (4.6% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (3.9% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.6% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.4% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 4.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9.6% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (12.4% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (LiveCodeBench vs BrowseComp) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.
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
SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM Judging

Feb 13, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics MT Bench , LMSYS Chatbot Arena Error rate Calibration
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
Document Reconstruction Unlocks Scalable Long-Context RLVR

Feb 9, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics LongBench Coherence Not Reported
MemoryArena: Benchmarking Agent Memory in Interdependent Multi-Session Agentic Tasks

Feb 18, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Memoryarena Recall Not Reported
Duel-Evolve: Reward-Free Test-Time Scaling via LLM Self-Preferences

Feb 25, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics LiveCodeBench , Mathbench Accuracy Not Reported
Can Large Language Models Replace Human Coders? Introducing ContentBench

Feb 23, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics ContentBench Agreement , Cost Not Reported
SWE-Protégé: Learning to Selectively Collaborate With an Expert Unlocks Small Language Models as Software Engineering Agents

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics SWE Bench , SWE Bench Verified Pass@1 , Latency Not Reported
D-COT: Disciplined Chain-of-Thought Learning for Efficient Reasoning in Small Language Models

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics MMLU , MMLU Pro Accuracy Not Reported
Search More, Think Less: Rethinking Long-Horizon Agentic Search for Efficiency and Generalization

Feb 26, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics GAIA , BrowseComp Accuracy , Latency Not Reported
Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics MMLU Accuracy , Cost Not Reported
BankMathBench: A Benchmark for Numerical Reasoning in Banking Scenarios

Feb 19, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Bankmathbench Accuracy 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… SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM J… AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertisin…
Human Feedback Expert Verification, Critique EditPairwise PreferenceExpert Verification
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsSimulation Env
Benchmarks HLEMT Bench, LMSYS Chatbot ArenaAd Bench
Metrics AccuracyError ratePass@1, Pass@3
Quality Controls AdjudicationCalibrationNot reported
Rater Population Domain ExpertsUnknownDomain Experts
Annotation Unit UnknownPairwiseTrajectory
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 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.

  2. Validating Political Position Predictions of Arguments

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + pairwise preferences. Focus: agreement. Abstract: Real-world knowledge representation often requires capturing subjective, continuous attributes.

  3. Think$^{2}$: Grounded Metacognitive Reasoning in Large Language Models

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + pairwise preferences. Focus: GSM8K. Abstract: Blinded human evaluations over 580 query pairs show an.

  4. InnoEval: On Research Idea Evaluation as a Knowledge-Grounded, Multi-Perspective Reasoning Problem

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge. Focus: Innoeval. Abstract: However, existing idea evaluation methods often suffer from narrow knowledge horizons, flattened.

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

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: simulation environments + expert verification. Focus: Ad-Bench / pass@1. Abstract: While Large Language Model (LLM) agents.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 4.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9.6% 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 (41)
  • Expert Verification (15)
  • Rubric Rating (13)
  • Red Team (10)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (256)
  • Simulation Env (18)
  • Llm As Judge (16)
  • Human Eval (12)

Top Benchmarks

  • LiveCodeBench (3)
  • BrowseComp (2)
  • MMLU (2)
  • SWE Bench (2)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (38)
  • Cost (16)
  • Latency (11)
  • F1 (6)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (57)
  • Crowd (2)
  • Mixed (2)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (15)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (9)
  • Adjudication (5)
  • Gold Questions (2)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 81.7% · benchmarks 35.0% · metrics 58.3% · quality controls 16.7%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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