Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

CS.MA Human Feedback And Eval Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 11 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Freeform. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: Lawbench. 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: 11 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS
Cs.MA

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 11 papers for CS.MA Human Feedback And Eval Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on Lawbench, LiveCodeBench and metric focus on accuracy, calibration. 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

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

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 18.2% of hub papers (2/11); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • calibration is reported in 9.1% of hub papers (1/11); 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).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is usable but incomplete (18.2% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.3% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% 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 usable but incomplete (18.2% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

Papers with known rater population

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

Papers with known annotation unit

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. A Decision-Theoretic Formalisation of Steganography With Applications to LLM Monitoring

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

  2. 2. Hierarchical LLM-Based Multi-Agent Framework with Prompt Optimization for Multi-Robot Task Planning

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

  3. 3. Training Generalizable Collaborative Agents via Strategic Risk Aversion

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

  4. 4. A Hierarchical Multi-Agent System for Autonomous Discovery in Geoscientific Data Archives

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Under the Influence: Quantifying Persuasion and Vigilance in Large Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Assessing Risks of Large Language Models in Mental Health Support: A Framework for Automated Clinical AI Red Teaming

    Adds simulation environments with red-team protocols for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Team of Thoughts: Efficient Test-time Scaling of Agentic Systems through Orchestrated Tool Calling

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

  8. 8. Colosseum: Auditing Collusion in Cooperative Multi-Agent Systems

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 18.2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (18.2% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=7, right_only=4

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

Lawbench

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention Lawbench.

Examples: Multimodal Multi-Agent Empowered Legal Judgment Prediction

Benchmark Brief

LiveCodeBench

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention LiveCodeBench.

Examples: Team of Thoughts: Efficient Test-time Scaling of Agentic Systems through Orchestrated Tool Calling

Metric Brief

calibration

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention calibration.

Examples: Team of Thoughts: Efficient Test-time Scaling of Agentic Systems through Orchestrated Tool Calling

Metric Brief

success rate

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention success rate.

Examples: Hierarchical LLM-Based Multi-Agent Framework with Prompt Optimization for Multi-Robot Task Planning

Top Papers

Related Hubs