Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.CL Papers (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 27, 2026). 1364 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 27, 2026). 1364 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 31, 2026.

Papers: 1,364 Last published: Mar 31, 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 1,364 total papers in this hub).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

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

Replication-Ready Set

17

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 17 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 0 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 7 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 (17 papers).

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 6.6% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 19.9% of papers in this hub.
  • DROP is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (1.8% 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

  • DROP appears in 1.1% of hub papers (15/1364); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MMLU appears in 0.9% of hub papers (12/1364); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 13.3% of hub papers (181/1364); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 5.9% of hub papers (81/1364); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.6% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (3% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.2% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (30.4% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.2% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.3% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (6.2% 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 MMLU) 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
Personalized RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models with Human Aligned Personalization

Apr 8, 2026

Yes Human Eval , Automatic Metrics Rewardbench Accuracy , Helpfulness Not Reported
PubMed Reasoner: Dynamic Reasoning-based Retrieval for Evidence-Grounded Biomedical Question Answering

Mar 28, 2026

Yes Llm As Judge , Automatic Metrics MMLU Accuracy , Relevance 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
Beyond Paper-to-Paper: Structured Profiling and Rubric Scoring for Paper-Reviewer Matching

Apr 7, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Scirepeval Recall Not Reported
Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Presentation and Hallucination in AI-written Papers

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Paperwrite Bench Not Reported Not Reported
Rethinking Atomic Decomposition for LLM Judges: A Prompt-Controlled Study of Reference-Grounded QA Evaluation

Mar 30, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics TruthfulQA Accuracy Not Reported
Do Phone-Use Agents Respect Your Privacy?

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics APPS , Myphonebench Task success Not Reported
ReDAct: Uncertainty-Aware Deferral for LLM Agents

Apr 8, 2026

No
Not Reported
Simulation Env ALFWorld Token cost Not Reported
DataSTORM: Deep Research on Large-Scale Databases using Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Storytelling

Apr 7, 2026

No
Not Reported
Human Eval Insightbench Recall Not Reported
LUDOBENCH: Evaluating LLM Behavioural Decision-Making Through Spot-Based Board Game Scenarios in Ludo

Apr 7, 2026

No
Not Reported
Simulation Env Ludobench Dice Not Reported
LLM-as-a-Judge for Time Series Explanations

Apr 2, 2026

No
Not Reported
Llm As Judge , Automatic Metrics DROP Accuracy , Faithfulness Not Reported
Navigating Large-Scale Document Collections: MuDABench for Multi-Document Analytical QA

Apr 24, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Mudabench Accuracy Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal Personalized RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models… PubMed Reasoner: Dynamic Reasoning-based Retrieval… TraceSafe: A Systematic Assessment of LLM Guardrail…
Human Feedback Pairwise Preference, Rubric RatingExpert VerificationRed Team
Evaluation Modes Human Eval, Automatic MetricsLlm As Judge, Automatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks RewardbenchMMLUTracesafe Bench
Metrics Accuracy, HelpfulnessAccuracy, RelevanceAccuracy
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownDomain ExpertsUnknown
Annotation Unit PairwiseUnknownTrajectory
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. More Human, More Efficient: Aligning Annotations with Quantized SLMs

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: agreement. Abstract: As Large Language Model (LLM) capabilities advance, the demand for.

  2. CounselReflect: A Toolkit for Auditing Mental-Health Dialogues

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: human evaluation + rubric ratings. Abstract: The system integrates two families of evaluation signals: (i) 12 model-based metrics.

  3. c1382a5c-11ef-4fa4-a9db-0afdb2ded177

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison.

  4. 09c665b2-839f-4c46-a142-1da759d0a2dd

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison.

  5. 681c998d-9840-48f9-b312-ccb4cb7bbd27

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison.

  6. 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.

  7. PubMed Reasoner: Dynamic Reasoning-based Retrieval for Evidence-Grounded Biomedical Question Answering

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge + expert verification. Focus: MMLU / accuracy. Abstract: Moreover, LLM-as-judge evaluations prefer our responses across:.

  8. 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.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.3% 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 (39)
  • Expert Verification (21)
  • Rubric Rating (15)
  • Critique Edit (11)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (271)
  • Simulation Env (17)
  • Human Eval (16)
  • Llm As Judge (16)

Top Benchmarks

  • DROP (15)
  • MMLU (12)
  • GSM8K (9)
  • SemEval (7)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (181)
  • Cost (81)
  • F1 (40)
  • Agreement (39)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (81)
  • Mixed (5)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (24)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (11)
  • Adjudication (7)
  • Gold Questions (5)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 81.7% · benchmarks 36.7% · metrics 75.0% · quality controls 11.7%.

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.