Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.LG + Multi Agent Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 13 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 13 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequently cited benchmark: AdvBench. Common metric signal: cost. 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 27, 2026.

Papers: 13 Last published: Feb 27, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Cs.LGMulti Agent

Researcher Quick Triage

This hub is best used for protocol triage and replication planning from abstract-level evidence. Quality band: Developing .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

13 / 13 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

2

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 2 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 0 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 0 papers report explicit quality controls (calibration/adjudication/IAA).

Primary action: Use this page for scouting only; collect additional papers before attempting replication-critical comparisons.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 50% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 38.5% of papers in this hub.
  • AdvBench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly pairwise annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • AdvBench appears in 8.3% of hub papers (1/13); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • APPS appears in 8.3% of hub papers (1/13); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • cost is reported in 16.7% of hub papers (2/13); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • jailbreak success rate is reported in 8.3% of hub papers (1/13); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (50% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (33.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (50% of papers).
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 100% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16.7% coverage).
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (16.7% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Stratify by benchmark (AdvBench vs APPS) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both cost and jailbreak success rate.
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
Jailbreak Foundry: From Papers to Runnable Attacks for Reproducible Benchmarking

Feb 27, 2026

Yes Llm As Judge AdvBench , Jbf Eval Success rate , Jailbreak success rate Not Reported
RLShield: Practical Multi-Agent RL for Financial Cyber Defense with Attack-Surface MDPs and Real-Time Response Orchestration

Feb 26, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics APPS Cost Not Reported
Decentralized Ranking Aggregation: Gossip Algorithms for Borda and Copeland Consensus

Feb 26, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
The Vision Wormhole: Latent-Space Communication in Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Systems

Feb 17, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
GenDB: The Next Generation of Query Processing -- Synthesized, Not Engineered

Mar 2, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Cost Not Reported
VolleyBots: A Testbed for Multi-Drone Volleyball Game Combining Motion Control and Strategic Play

Feb 4, 2025

Yes Automatic Metrics , Simulation Env Not Reported Win rate Not Reported
SPACeR: Self-Play Anchoring with Centralized Reference Models

Oct 20, 2025

Yes Simulation Env Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
CORE: Measuring Multi-Agent LLM Interaction Quality under Game-Theoretic Pressures

Aug 16, 2025

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
MALLVI: A Multi-Agent Framework for Integrated Generalized Robotics Manipulation

Feb 18, 2026

No
Not Reported
Simulation Env Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Training Generalizable Collaborative Agents via Strategic Risk Aversion

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Can Multimodal LLMs Perform Time Series Anomaly Detection?

Feb 25, 2025

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Multi-agent deep reinforcement learning with centralized training and decentralized execution for transportation infrastructure management

Jan 23, 2024

No
Not Reported
Simulation Env Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal Jailbreak Foundry: From Papers to Runnable Attacks… RLShield: Practical Multi-Agent RL for Financial Cy… Decentralized Ranking Aggregation: Gossip Algorithm…
Human Feedback Red TeamNot reportedPairwise Preference
Evaluation Modes Llm As JudgeAutomatic MetricsNot reported
Benchmarks AdvBench, Jbf EvalAPPSNot reported
Metrics Success rate, Jailbreak success rateCostNot reported
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit UnknownUnknownRanking
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. GenDB: The Next Generation of Query Processing -- Synthesized, Not Engineered

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: cost. Abstract: Traditional query processing relies on engines that are carefully optimized and engineered by.

  2. Jailbreak Foundry: From Papers to Runnable Attacks for Reproducible Benchmarking

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: LLM-as-judge + red-team protocols. Focus: AdvBench / success rate. Abstract: This system enables a standardized AdvBench evaluation of.

  3. RLShield: Practical Multi-Agent RL for Financial Cyber Defense with Attack-Surface MDPs and Real-Time Response Orchestration

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: APPS / cost. Abstract: Financial systems run nonstop and must stay reliable even during cyber.

  4. VolleyBots: A Testbed for Multi-Drone Volleyball Game Combining Motion Control and Strategic Play

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: automatic metrics + demonstration data. Focus: win rate. Abstract: Robot sports, characterized by well-defined objectives, explicit rules,.

  5. SPACeR: Self-Play Anchoring with Centralized Reference Models

    Adds simulation environments with demonstration data for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: simulation environments + demonstration data. Abstract: Developing autonomous vehicles (AVs) requires not only safety.

  6. Decentralized Ranking Aggregation: Gossip Algorithms for Borda and Copeland Consensus

    Adds evaluation protocol evidence with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: pairwise preferences. Abstract: The concept of ranking aggregation plays a central role in.

  7. The Vision Wormhole: Latent-Space Communication in Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Systems

    Adds evaluation protocol evidence with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: pairwise preferences. Abstract: Our framework adopts a hub-and-spoke topology to reduce pairwise alignment.

  8. CORE: Measuring Multi-Agent LLM Interaction Quality under Game-Theoretic Pressures

    Adds evaluation protocol evidence with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: pairwise preferences. Abstract: We apply CORE to pairwise LLM dialogs across competitive, cooperative,.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16.7% 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 (3)
  • Demonstrations (2)
  • Red Team (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (5)
  • Simulation Env (4)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • AdvBench (1)
  • APPS (1)
  • Jbf Eval (1)

Top Metrics

  • Cost (2)
  • Jailbreak success rate (1)
  • Success rate (1)
  • Win rate (1)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (2)

Quality Controls

Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 46.2% · benchmarks 15.4% · metrics 30.8% · quality controls 0.0%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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