Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Critique Edit Or Demonstrations Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 36 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: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: Retrieval. 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 26, 2026.

Papers: 36 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Critique EditDemonstrations

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 36 papers for Critique Edit Or Demonstrations Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, AIME and metric focus on cost, accuracy. 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

  • Retrieval appears in 8.3% of hub papers (3/36); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • AIME appears in 2.8% of hub papers (1/36); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • cost is reported in 11.1% of hub papers (4/36); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 8.3% of hub papers (3/36); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Maintain strength on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is strong (100% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is a replication risk (19.4% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (19.4% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (13.9% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is strong (100% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is a replication risk (19.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (19.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (13.9% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Cross-Cultural Expert-Level Art Critique Evaluation with Vision-Language Models

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

  2. 2. Fine-Tuning Without Forgetting In-Context Learning: A Theoretical Analysis of Linear Attention Models

    High citation traction makes this a useful baseline for method and protocol context.

  3. 3. Natural Language Declarative Prompting (NLD-P): A Modular Governance Method for Prompt Design Under Model Drift

    High citation traction makes this a useful baseline for method and protocol context.

  4. 4. Towards Better RL Training Data Utilization via Second-Order Rollout

    High citation traction makes this a useful baseline for method and protocol context.

  5. 5. AuditBench: Evaluating Alignment Auditing Techniques on Models with Hidden Behaviors

    Adds automatic metrics with demonstration data for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. FewMMBench: A Benchmark for Multimodal Few-Shot Learning

    Adds automatic metrics with demonstration data for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Explore-on-Graph: Incentivizing Autonomous Exploration of Large Language Models on Knowledge Graphs with Path-refined Reward Modeling

    Adds automatic metrics with demonstration data for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Beyond Refusal: Probing the Limits of Agentic Self-Correction for Semantic Sensitive Information

    Adds automatic metrics with critique/edit feedback for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 5.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (19.4% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=31

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=31, right_only=4

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs human_eval

both=0, left_only=4, right_only=1

0 papers use both Simulation Env and Human Eval.

Benchmark Brief

AIME

Coverage: 1 papers (2.8%)

1 papers (2.8%) mention AIME.

Examples: Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback

Benchmark Brief

Auditbench

Coverage: 1 papers (2.8%)

1 papers (2.8%) mention Auditbench.

Examples: AuditBench: Evaluating Alignment Auditing Techniques on Models with Hidden Behaviors

Metric Brief

agreement

Coverage: 1 papers (2.8%)

1 papers (2.8%) mention agreement.

Examples: Can Large Language Models Replace Human Coders? Introducing ContentBench

Top Papers

Related Hubs