Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.CV + Long Horizon Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 11 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Simulation Env, Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequently cited benchmark: APPS. 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 25, 2026.

Papers: 11 Last published: Feb 25, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Cs.CVLong Horizon

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 11 papers for CS.CV + Long Horizon Papers. Dominant protocol signals include simulation environments, automatic metrics, with frequent benchmark focus on APPS, MATH and metric focus on accuracy, success rate. 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

  • APPS appears in 9.1% of hub papers (1/11); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MATH appears in 9.1% of hub papers (1/11); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 27.3% of hub papers (3/11); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • success rate is reported in 18.2% of hub papers (2/11); 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 (0% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.3% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (63.6% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.3% 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 (0% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.3% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (63.6% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.3% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Self-Correcting VLA: Online Action Refinement via Sparse World Imagination

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

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

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

  3. 3. Learning from Trials and Errors: Reflective Test-Time Planning for Embodied LLMs

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

  4. 4. Classroom Final Exam: An Instructor-Tested Reasoning Benchmark

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. VIGiA: Instructional Video Guidance via Dialogue Reasoning and Retrieval

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. UI-Venus-1.5 Technical Report

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Fast-ThinkAct: Efficient Vision-Language-Action Reasoning via Verbalizable Latent Planning

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

  8. 8. Aerial Vision-Language Navigation with a Unified Framework for Spatial, Temporal and Embodied Reasoning

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9.1% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

simulation_env vs automatic_metrics

both=1, left_only=6, right_only=4

1 papers use both Simulation Env and Automatic Metrics.

Benchmark Brief

APPS

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention APPS.

Examples: UI-Venus-1.5 Technical Report

Benchmark Brief

MATH

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention MATH.

Examples: MathScape: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models in Real-World Mathematical Contexts

Benchmark Brief

Retrieval

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention Retrieval.

Examples: VIGiA: Instructional Video Guidance via Dialogue Reasoning and Retrieval

Metric Brief

success rate

Coverage: 2 papers (18.2%)

2 papers (18.2%) mention success rate.

Examples: Self-Correcting VLA: Online Action Refinement via Sparse World Imagination , LiLo-VLA: Compositional Long-Horizon Manipulation via Linked Object-Centric Policies

Metric Brief

cost

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention cost.

Examples: Aerial Vision-Language Navigation with a Unified Framework for Spatial, Temporal and Embodied Reasoning

Top Papers

Related Hubs