Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Expert Verification Or Red Team Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 44 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: Gold Questions. 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: 44 Last published: Feb 25, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Expert VerificationRed Team

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page covers 44 papers centered on Expert Verification Or Red Team Papers. Common evaluation modes include Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env, with benchmark emphasis on Retrieval, AdvBench. Metric concentration includes accuracy, success rate, and the agentic footprint highlights Multi Agent, Tool Use. 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.
  • 3 papers (6.8%) mention Retrieval.
  • Most common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is a common reported metric and should be paired with protocol context before ranking methods.
  • 9 papers (20.5%) mention accuracy.
  • Most common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics.

Researcher Checklist

  • Papers with explicit human feedback: Coverage is strong (100% vs 45% target).
  • Papers reporting quality controls: Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 30% target).
  • Papers naming benchmarks/datasets: Coverage is usable but incomplete (22.7% vs 35% target).
  • Papers naming evaluation metrics: Coverage is strong (63.6% vs 35% target).
  • Papers with known rater population: Coverage is strong (56.8% vs 35% target).
  • Papers with known annotation unit: Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

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

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (22.7% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (63.6% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is strong (56.8% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. MEDSYN: Benchmarking Multi-EviDence SYNthesis in Complex Clinical Cases for Multimodal Large Language Models

    Start with this anchor paper for scope and protocol framing. Covers Automatic Metrics. Includes human-feedback signal: Expert Verification.

  2. 2. SurGo-R1: Benchmarking and Modeling Contextual Reasoning for Operative Zone in Surgical Video

    Covers Automatic Metrics. Includes human-feedback signal: Expert Verification.

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

    Covers Automatic Metrics. Includes human-feedback signal: Pairwise Preference, Red Team.

  4. 4. SparkMe: Adaptive Semi-Structured Interviewing for Qualitative Insight Discovery

    Covers Automatic Metrics. Includes human-feedback signal: Expert Verification.

  5. 5. "Are You Sure?": An Empirical Study of Human Perception Vulnerability in LLM-Driven Agentic Systems

    Covers Automatic Metrics. Includes human-feedback signal: Expert Verification.

  6. 6. An Expert Schema for Evaluating Large Language Model Errors in Scholarly Question-Answering Systems

    Covers Automatic Metrics. Includes human-feedback signal: Expert Verification.

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

    Covers Automatic Metrics. Includes human-feedback signal: Red Team.

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

    Covers Automatic Metrics. Includes human-feedback signal: Rubric Rating, Red Team.

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=1, right_only=2

0 papers use both Human Eval and Llm As Judge.

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=38

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=2, right_only=38

0 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

Top Papers

Related Hubs