Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Critique Edit Or Red Team Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 42 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: Retrieval. Common metric signal: jailbreak success rate. 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: 42 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Critique EditRed Team

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 42 papers for Critique Edit Or Red Team Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, AdvBench and metric focus on jailbreak success rate, 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 4.8% of hub papers (2/42); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • AdvBench appears in 2.4% of hub papers (1/42); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • jailbreak success rate is reported in 11.9% of hub papers (5/42); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 9.5% of hub papers (4/42); 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 (4.8% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.8% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (35.7% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (11.9% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

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

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (4.8% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.8% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (35.7% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (11.9% 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. 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.

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

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

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

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

  5. 5. Alignment-Weighted DPO: A principled reasoning approach to improve safety alignment

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. A Systematic Review of Algorithmic Red Teaming Methodologies for Assurance and Security of AI Applications

    Adds automatic metrics with red-team protocols for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. SibylSense: Adaptive Rubric Learning via Memory Tuning and Adversarial Probing

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. CAMEL: Confidence-Gated Reflection for Reward Modeling

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 4.8% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16.7% 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=37

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=37, 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

AdvBench

Coverage: 1 papers (2.4%)

1 papers (2.4%) mention AdvBench.

Examples: A Simple and Efficient Jailbreak Method Exploiting LLMs' Helpfulness

Benchmark Brief

AIME

Coverage: 1 papers (2.4%)

1 papers (2.4%) mention AIME.

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

Metric Brief

jailbreak success rate

Coverage: 5 papers (11.9%)

5 papers (11.9%) mention jailbreak success rate.

Examples: MANATEE: Inference-Time Lightweight Diffusion Based Safety Defense for LLMs , What Matters For Safety Alignment? , Reasoning Up the Instruction Ladder for Controllable Language Models

Top Papers

Related Hubs