Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

General Or Math Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 693 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 26, 2026.

Papers: 693 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
GeneralMath

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 693 papers for General Or Math Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, MATH and metric focus on accuracy, cost. 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 10% of hub papers (69/693); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MATH appears in 2.9% of hub papers (20/693); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 21.9% of hub papers (152/693); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 8.2% of hub papers (57/693); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (14.3% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (5.1% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (25.3% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (45.3% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (6.8% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (11.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (14.3% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (5.1% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (25.3% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (45.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (6.8% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (11.3% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. LLM Novice Uplift on Dual-Use, In Silico Biology Tasks

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

  2. 2. A Mixture-of-Experts Model for Multimodal Emotion Recognition in Conversations

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

  3. 3. Discourse-Aware Dual-Track Streaming Response for Low-Latency Spoken Dialogue Systems

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

  4. 4. AgentDropoutV2: Optimizing Information Flow in Multi-Agent Systems via Test-Time Rectify-or-Reject Pruning

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Why Diffusion Language Models Struggle with Truly Parallel (Non-Autoregressive) Decoding?

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. InnerQ: Hardware-aware Tuning-free Quantization of KV Cache for Large Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

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

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

  8. 8. MTRAG-UN: A Benchmark for Open Challenges in Multi-Turn RAG Conversations

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 5.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.8% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs llm_as_judge

both=2, left_only=20, right_only=6

2 papers use both Human Eval and Llm As Judge.

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=4, left_only=18, right_only=606

4 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=2, left_only=6, right_only=608

2 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

Top Papers

Related Hubs