Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.LG Papers (Last 60 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 1134 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 1134 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: MMLU. 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 15, 2026.

Papers: 1,134 Last published: Feb 15, 2026 Global RSS
Cs.LGLast 60d

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 1,134 total papers in this hub).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

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

Replication-Ready Set

19

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 19 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 (19 papers).

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 7.4% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 21.3% of papers in this hub.
  • MMLU is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (2% 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

  • MMLU appears in 0.5% of hub papers (6/1134); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • DROP appears in 0.4% of hub papers (5/1134); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 10.4% of hub papers (118/1134); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 5.9% of hub papers (67/1134); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.4% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (2.9% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (7% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.2% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.8% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 2.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (5.2% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (8.8% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (MMLU vs DROP) 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
TraceSafe: A Systematic Assessment of LLM Guardrails on Multi-Step Tool-Calling Trajectories

Apr 8, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Tracesafe Bench Accuracy Not Reported
Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Presentation and Hallucination in AI-written Papers

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Paperwrite Bench Cost Not Reported
FairMed-XGB: A Bayesian-Optimised Multi-Metric Framework with Explainability for Demographic Equity in Critical Healthcare Data

Mar 16, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics DROP Accuracy , Auroc Not Reported
Modeling and Benchmarking Spoken Dialogue Rewards with Modality and Colloquialness

Mar 16, 2026

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

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics APPS , Myphonebench Task success Not Reported
DSPA: Dynamic SAE Steering for Data-Efficient Preference Alignment

Mar 23, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics MT Bench , AlpacaEval Accuracy Not Reported
CausalRM: Causal-Theoretic Reward Modeling for RLHF from Observational User Feedbacks

Mar 19, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Harmbench Cost Not Reported
AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertising Analytics Benchmark for LLM Agents

Feb 15, 2026

Yes Simulation Env Ad Bench Pass@1 , Pass@3 Not Reported
\$OneMillion-Bench: How Far are Language Agents from Human Experts?

Mar 9, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Onemillion Bench Accuracy , Coherence Not Reported
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
Duel-Evolve: Reward-Free Test-Time Scaling via LLM Self-Preferences

Feb 25, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics LiveCodeBench , Mathbench 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… TraceSafe: A Systematic Assessment of LLM Guardrail… Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Present…
Human Feedback Pairwise Preference, Rubric RatingRed TeamRubric Rating
Evaluation Modes Human Eval, Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks RewardbenchTracesafe BenchPaperwrite Bench
Metrics Accuracy, HelpfulnessAccuracyCost
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit PairwiseTrajectoryMulti Dim Rubric
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. An artificial intelligence framework for end-to-end rare disease phenotyping from clinical notes using large language models

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: f1. Abstract: Phenotyping is fundamental to rare disease diagnosis, but manual curation.

  2. 5927ed59-8617-4149-ba2f-3333487e639a

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

  3. 7fcb077d-1be0-48ff-b520-29cb03330422

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

  4. e9250a0d-77c6-4937-9bde-62fba067e8ac

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

  5. Personalized RewardBench: Evaluating Reward Models with Human Aligned Personalization

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + pairwise preferences. Focus: Rewardbench / accuracy. Abstract: While benchmarks for general response quality are.

  6. AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertising Analytics Benchmark for LLM Agents

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: simulation environments + expert verification. Focus: Ad-Bench / pass@1. Abstract: While Large Language Model (LLM) agents have.

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

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge + red-team protocols. Focus: AdvBench / success rate. Abstract: This system enables a standardized AdvBench.

  8. Build, Judge, Optimize: A Blueprint for Continuous Improvement of Multi-Agent Consumer Assistants

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge + pairwise preferences. Abstract: Grocery shopping further amplifies these difficulties, as user requests are often.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 2.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (5.2% 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 (41)
  • Expert Verification (14)
  • Red Team (13)
  • Demonstrations (11)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (241)
  • Simulation Env (25)
  • Llm As Judge (15)
  • Human Eval (5)

Top Benchmarks

  • MMLU (6)
  • DROP (5)
  • GSM8K (5)
  • AIME (4)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (118)
  • Cost (67)
  • Precision (23)
  • Latency (19)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (57)
  • Crowd (1)
  • Mixed (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (23)
  • Adjudication (4)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (4)
  • Gold Questions (2)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 78.3% · benchmarks 43.3% · metrics 63.3% · 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.