Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.CV Human Feedback And Eval Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 88 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: 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 26, 2026.

Papers: 88 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS
Cs.CV

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 88 papers for CS.CV Human Feedback And Eval Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, MATH and metric focus on accuracy, cost. 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 5.7% of hub papers (5/88); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MATH appears in 2.3% of hub papers (2/88); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 20.5% of hub papers (18/88); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 6.8% of hub papers (6/88); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (14.8% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (1.1% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (42% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (12.5% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (8% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (14.8% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (1.1% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (42% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (12.5% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (8% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Scale Can't Overcome Pragmatics: The Impact of Reporting Bias on Vision-Language Reasoning

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

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

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

  3. 3. Moral Preferences of LLMs Under Directed Contextual Influence

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

  4. 4. NoLan: Mitigating Object Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models via Dynamic Suppression of Language Priors

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. DynamicGTR: Leveraging Graph Topology Representation Preferences to Boost VLM Capabilities on Graph QAs

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. SurGo-R1: Benchmarking and Modeling Contextual Reasoning for Operative Zone in Surgical Video

    Adds automatic metrics with expert verification for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Dynamic Multimodal Activation Steering for Hallucination Mitigation in Large Vision-Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Following the Diagnostic Trace: Visual Cognition-guided Cooperative Network for Chest X-Ray Diagnosis

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 1.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (12.5% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs llm_as_judge

both=1, left_only=1, right_only=1

1 papers use both Human Eval and Llm As Judge.

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=2, right_only=76

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=2, right_only=76

0 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

Benchmark Brief

APPS

Coverage: 1 papers (1.1%)

1 papers (1.1%) mention APPS.

Examples: UI-Venus-1.5 Technical Report

Top Papers

Related Hubs