Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.CV + General Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 44 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: 44 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Cs.CVGeneral

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 44 papers for CS.CV + General Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, Caparena 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 4.5% of hub papers (2/44); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Caparena appears in 2.3% of hub papers (1/44); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 15.9% of hub papers (7/44); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 6.8% of hub papers (3/44); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (2.3% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (13.6% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (43.2% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (6.8% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (2.3% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (13.6% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (43.2% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (6.8% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% 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. Moral Preferences of LLMs Under Directed Contextual Influence

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

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

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

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

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. CCCaption: Dual-Reward Reinforcement Learning for Complete and Correct Image Captioning

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

  6. 6. LiLo-VLA: Compositional Long-Horizon Manipulation via Linked Object-Centric Policies

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Causal Decoding for Hallucination-Resistant Multimodal Large Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. ECHOSAT: Estimating Canopy Height Over Space And Time

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 2.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.8% 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=37

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=2, right_only=37

0 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

Benchmark Brief

Caparena

Coverage: 1 papers (2.3%)

1 papers (2.3%) mention Caparena.

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

Benchmark Brief

DocVQA

Coverage: 1 papers (2.3%)

1 papers (2.3%) mention DocVQA.

Examples: Chain-of-Thought Compression Should Not Be Blind: V-Skip for Efficient Multimodal Reasoning via Dual-Path Anchoring

Metric Brief

faithfulness

Coverage: 2 papers (4.5%)

2 papers (4.5%) mention faithfulness.

Examples: Causal Decoding for Hallucination-Resistant Multimodal Large Language Models , Towards Attributions of Input Variables in a Coalition

Top Papers

Related Hubs