Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Automatic Metrics Or Simulation Env Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 965 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 25, 2026.

Papers: 965 Last published: Feb 25, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Automatic MetricsSimulation Env

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page covers 965 papers centered on Automatic Metrics Or Simulation Env Papers. Common evaluation modes include Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env, with benchmark emphasis on Retrieval, MATH. Metric concentration includes accuracy, cost, and the agentic footprint highlights Long Horizon, Multi Agent. Use the anchored takeaways below to compare protocol choices, quality-control patterns, and evidence depth before allocating new eval budget.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

Protocol Takeaways

Benchmark Interpretation

  • Retrieval appears as a recurring benchmark anchor in this page.
  • 100 papers (10.4%) mention Retrieval.
  • Most common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is a common reported metric and should be paired with protocol context before ranking methods.
  • 218 papers (22.6%) mention accuracy.
  • Most common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env.

Researcher Checklist

  • Papers with explicit human feedback: Coverage is a replication risk (13.3% vs 45% target).
  • Papers reporting quality controls: Coverage is a replication risk (3.7% vs 30% target).
  • Papers naming benchmarks/datasets: Coverage is usable but incomplete (24.8% vs 35% target).
  • Papers naming evaluation metrics: Coverage is strong (46.4% vs 35% target).
  • Papers with known rater population: Coverage is a replication risk (9.4% vs 35% target).
  • Papers with known annotation unit: Coverage is a replication risk (10.2% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (13.3% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (3.7% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (24.8% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (46.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (9.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (10.2% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Recovered in Translation: Efficient Pipeline for Automated Translation of Benchmarks and Datasets

    Start with this anchor paper for scope and protocol framing. Covers Automatic Metrics.

  2. 2. SumTablets: A Transliteration Dataset of Sumerian Tablets

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  3. 3. Improving Parametric Knowledge Access in Reasoning Language Models

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  4. 4. GUI-Libra: Training Native GUI Agents to Reason and Act with Action-aware Supervision and Partially Verifiable RL

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  5. 5. LiCQA : A Lightweight Complex Question Answering System

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  6. 6. DySCO: Dynamic Attention-Scaling Decoding for Long-Context LMs

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  7. 7. Dynamic Personality Adaptation in Large Language Models via State Machines

    Covers Simulation Env.

  8. 8. When AI Writes, Whose Voice Remains? Quantifying Cultural Marker Erasure Across World English Varieties in Large Language Models

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

Known Limitations

  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper method details may be missing.
  • Extraction fields are conservative and can under-report implicit protocol details.
  • Cross-page comparisons should control for benchmark and metric mismatch.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs llm_as_judge

both=0, left_only=11, right_only=4

0 papers use both Human Eval and Llm As Judge.

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=9, left_only=2, right_only=867

9 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=2, left_only=2, right_only=874

2 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

Top Papers

Related Hubs