Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Coding Or Multilingual Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 257 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 257 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: SWE-bench. 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: 257 Last published: Feb 15, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
CodingMultilingual

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 257 total papers in this hub).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

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

Replication-Ready Set

20

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 20 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 0 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 12 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 (20 papers).

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 61.1% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 53.3% of papers in this hub.
  • SWE-bench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (3.1% 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

  • SWE-bench appears in 1.9% of hub papers (5/257); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • LiveCodeBench appears in 1.6% of hub papers (4/257); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 28.4% of hub papers (73/257); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 13.6% of hub papers (35/257); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (61.1% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.8% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (24.9% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (58.4% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (20.2% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (29.6% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (61.1% of papers).
  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 44.7% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 5.8% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (20.2% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (SWE-bench vs LiveCodeBench) 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
CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cricket Analytics

Dec 26, 2025

Yes Automatic Metrics DROP , BIRD Accuracy Gold Questions
Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Presentation and Hallucination in AI-written Papers

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Paperwrite Bench Cost 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
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
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
StitchCUDA: An Automated Multi-Agents End-to-End GPU Programing Framework with Rubric-based Agentic Reinforcement Learning

Mar 3, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Kernelbench Success rate Not Reported
Document Reconstruction Unlocks Scalable Long-Context RLVR

Feb 9, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics LongBench Coherence Not Reported
AJAR: Adaptive Jailbreak Architecture for Red-teaming

Jan 16, 2026

Yes Simulation Env Harmbench Success rate , Jailbreak success rate Not Reported
$V_1$: Unifying Generation and Self-Verification for Parallel Reasoners

Mar 4, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics SWE Bench , AIME Pass@1 Not Reported
Can Large Language Models Replace Human Coders? Introducing ContentBench

Feb 23, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics ContentBench Agreement , Cost Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating… Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Present… Modeling and Benchmarking Spoken Dialogue Rewards w…
Human Feedback Expert VerificationRubric RatingPairwise Preference
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks DROP, BIRDPaperwrite BenchEsdr Bench
Metrics AccuracyCostAccuracy
Quality Controls Gold QuestionsNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population Domain ExpertsUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit UnknownMulti Dim RubricPairwise
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. CounselReflect: A Toolkit for Auditing Mental-Health Dialogues

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: human evaluation + rubric ratings. Abstract: The system integrates two families of evaluation signals: (i) 12 model-based metrics.

  2. Is this Idea Novel? An Automated Benchmark for Judgment of Research Ideas

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: human evaluation + rubric ratings. Focus: Rinobench. Abstract: Yet, evaluation of these approaches remains largely inconsistent and is.

  3. Beyond the Resumé: A Rubric-Aware Automatic Interview System for Information Elicitation

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: cost. Abstract: We present a system that leverages an LLM interviewer to.

  4. 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.

  5. Blinded Radiologist and LLM-Based Evaluation of LLM-Generated Japanese Translations of Chest CT Reports: Comparative Study

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge + pairwise preferences. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the educational suitability of LLM-generated Japanese.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 5.8% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (20.2% 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 (69)
  • Expert Verification (25)
  • Demonstrations (21)
  • Rubric Rating (21)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (137)
  • Simulation Env (26)
  • Human Eval (17)
  • Llm As Judge (13)

Top Benchmarks

  • SWE Bench (5)
  • LiveCodeBench (4)
  • LMSYS Chatbot Arena (4)
  • SWE Bench Verified (4)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (73)
  • Cost (35)
  • Latency (12)
  • F1 (9)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (50)
  • Mixed (2)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (8)
  • Adjudication (4)
  • Gold Questions (2)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (2)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 91.7% · benchmarks 53.3% · metrics 66.7% · quality controls 20.0%.

Top Papers

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

    Lingxiang Hu, Yiding Sun, Tianle Xia, Wenwei Li, Ming Xu · Feb 15, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Expert Verification Simulation Env Long Horizon

    While Large Language Model (LLM) agents have achieved remarkable progress in complex reasoning tasks, evaluating their performance in real-world environments has become a critical problem.

  • Let's Think in Two Steps: Mitigating Agreement Bias in MLLMs with Self-Grounded Verification

    Moises Andrade, Joonhyuk Cha, Brandon Ho, Vriksha Srihari, Karmesh Yadav · Jul 15, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic MetricsSimulation Env Long Horizon

    We evaluate MLLM verifiers across web navigation, computer use, and robotics, spanning 13+ models, 28+ designs, and thousands of trajectories from diverse agents.

  • Jailbreak Foundry: From Papers to Runnable Attacks for Reproducible Benchmarking

    Zhicheng Fang, Jingjie Zheng, Chenxu Fu, Wei Xu · Feb 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Red Team Llm As Judge Multi Agent

    Jailbreak techniques for large language models (LLMs) evolve faster than benchmarks, making robustness estimates stale and difficult to compare across papers due to drift in datasets, harnesses, and judging protocols.

  • CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cricket Analytics

    Vaibhav Devraj, Dhruv Kumar, Jagat Sesh Challa, Parth Agarwal, Navya Kommuri · Dec 26, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Expert Verification Automatic Metrics

    To investigate this potential capability gap, we present CricBench, a comprehensive benchmark suite for evaluating LLMs on specialized cricket data.

  • Don't Pass@k: A Bayesian Framework for Large Language Model Evaluation

    Mohsen Hariri, Amirhossein Samandar, Michael Hinczewski, Vipin Chaudhary · Oct 5, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Automatic MetricsSimulation Env

    We present a principled Bayesian evaluation framework that replaces Pass@k and average accuracy over N trials (avg@N) with posterior estimates of a model's underlying success probability and credible intervals, yielding stable rankings and…

  • StitchCUDA: An Automated Multi-Agents End-to-End GPU Programing Framework with Rubric-based Agentic Reinforcement Learning

    Shiyang Li, Zijian Zhang, Winson Chen, Yuebo Luo, Mingyi Hong · Mar 3, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Automatic Metrics Multi Agent

    To address the challenge, in this work, we propose StitchCUDA, a multi-agent framework for end-to-end GPU program generation, with three specialized agents: a Planner to orchestrate whole system design, a Coder dedicated to implementing it…

  • Document Reconstruction Unlocks Scalable Long-Context RLVR

    Yao Xiao, Lei Wang, Yue Deng, Guanzheng Chen, Ziqi Jin · Feb 9, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Automatic Metrics

    However, it often relies on gold-standard answers or explicit evaluation rubrics provided by powerful teacher models or human experts, which are costly and time-consuming.

  • AJAR: Adaptive Jailbreak Architecture for Red-teaming

    Yipu Dou, Wang Yang · Jan 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Red Team Simulation Env

    Large language model (LLM) safety evaluation is moving from content moderation to action security as modern systems gain persistent state, tool access, and autonomous control loops.

  • Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Presentation and Hallucination in AI-written Papers

    Atsuyuki Miyai, Mashiro Toyooka, Zaiying Zhao, Kenta Watanabe, Toshihiko Yamasaki · Apr 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Automatic Metrics

    We introduce Paper Reconstruction Evaluation (PaperRecon), an evaluation framework in which an overview (overview.md) is created from an existing paper, after which an agent generates a full paper based on the overview and minimal…

  • Modeling and Benchmarking Spoken Dialogue Rewards with Modality and Colloquialness

    Jingyu Lu, Yuhan Wang, Fan Zhuo, Xize Cheng, Changhao Pan · Mar 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    To address these challenges, we introduce SDiaReward, an end-to-end multi-turn reward model trained on SDiaReward-Dataset, a novel collection of episode-level preference pairs explicitly targeting these gaps.

  • $V_1$: Unifying Generation and Self-Verification for Parallel Reasoners

    Harman Singh, Xiuyu Li, Kusha Sareen, Monishwaran Maheswaran, Sijun Tan · Mar 4, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    On code generation (LiveCodeBench, CodeContests, SWE-Bench) and math reasoning (AIME, HMMT) benchmarks, V_1-Infer improves Pass@1 by up to 10% over pointwise verification and outperforms recent test-time scaling methods while being…

  • Symphonym: Universal Phonetic Embeddings for Cross-Script Name Matching

    Stephen Gadd · Jan 11, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Expert Verification Automatic Metrics

    Trained on 32.7 million triplet samples drawn from 67 million toponyms spanning GeoNames, Wikidata, and the Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names, the Student achieves the highest Recall@1 (85.2%) and Mean Reciprocal Rank (90.8%) on the…

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

    Jeffrey T. H. Wong, Zixi Zhang, Junyi Liu, Yiren Zhao · Feb 18, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Automatic Metrics Multi Agent

    Existing Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) typically rely on homogeneous model configurations, failing to exploit the diverse expertise inherent in different post-trained architectures.

  • Do Phone-Use Agents Respect Your Privacy?

    Zhengyang Tang, Ke Ji, Xidong Wang, Zihan Ye, Xinyuan Wang · Apr 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    We study whether phone-use agents respect privacy while completing benign mobile tasks.

  • CausalRM: Causal-Theoretic Reward Modeling for RLHF from Observational User Feedbacks

    Hao Wang, Licheng Pan, Zhichao Chen, Chunyuan Zheng, Zhixuan Chu · Mar 19, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Automatic Metrics

    Despite the success of reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) in aligning language models, current reward modeling heavily relies on experimental feedback data collected from human annotators under controlled and costly…

  • LIT-RAGBench: Benchmarking Generator Capabilities of Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

    Koki Itai, Shunichi Hasegawa, Yuta Yamamoto, Gouki Minegishi, Masaki Otsuki · Mar 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Llm As JudgeAutomatic Metrics Long Horizon

    To bridge the gap between existing evaluations and practical use, we introduce LIT-RAGBench (the Logic, Integration, Table, Reasoning, and Abstention RAG Generator Benchmark), which defines five categories: Integration, Reasoning, Logic,…

  • Can Large Language Models Replace Human Coders? Introducing ContentBench

    Michael Haman · Feb 23, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Critique Edit Automatic Metrics

    This paper introduces ContentBench, a public benchmark suite that helps answer this replacement question by tracking how much agreement low-cost LLMs achieve and what they cost on the same interpretive coding tasks.

  • Dyslexify: A Mechanistic Defense Against Typographic Attacks in CLIP

    Lorenz Hufe, Constantin Venhoff, Erblina Purelku, Maximilian Dreyer, Sebastian Lapuschkin · Aug 28, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Red Team Automatic Metrics

    These models serve as suitable drop-in replacements for a broad range of safety-critical applications, where the risks of text-based manipulation outweigh the utility of text recognition.

  • LUDOBENCH: Evaluating LLM Behavioural Decision-Making Through Spot-Based Board Game Scenarios in Ludo

    Ojas Jain, Dhruv Kumar · Apr 7, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Simulation Env Multi Agent

    We introduce LudoBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM strategic reasoning in Ludo, a stochastic multi-agent board game whose dice mechanics, piece capture, safe-square navigation, and home-path progression introduce meaningful planning…

  • LiveMCPBench: Can Agents Navigate an Ocean of MCP Tools?

    Guozhao Mo, Wenliang Zhong, Jiawei Chen, Qianhao Yuan, Xuanang Chen · Aug 3, 2025 · Citations: 0

    Llm As Judge Tool Use

    Unfortunately, there is still a large gap between real-world MCP usage and current evaluation: they typically assume single-server settings and directly inject tools into the model's context, bypassing the challenges of large-scale…

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.