Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Human Eval + General (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Human Eval, Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequent quality control: Gold Questions. Frequently cited benchmark: Frtr-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 20, 2026.

Papers: 10 Last published: Feb 20, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Human EvalGeneralLast 30d

Researcher Quick Triage

This hub is best used for protocol triage and replication planning from abstract-level evidence. Quality band: Developing .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

10 / 10 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

1

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 1 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 0 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 1 papers report explicit quality controls (calibration/adjudication/IAA).

Primary action: Use this page for scouting only; collect additional papers before attempting replication-critical comparisons.

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 60% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • human evaluation appears in 100% of papers in this hub.
  • Frtr-Bench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is gold-question checks (10% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly multi-dimensional rubrics; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • Frtr-Bench appears in 10% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 40% of hub papers (4/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • agreement is reported in 30% of hub papers (3/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (60% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (80% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is strong (40% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is strong (40% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (60% of papers).
  • Rater population and annotation-unit details are frequently specified.

Known Gaps

  • Only 10% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (10% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and agreement.
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
Validating Political Position Predictions of Arguments

Feb 20, 2026

Yes Human Eval Not Reported Agreement Gold Questions , Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
Evaluating Austrian A-Level German Essays with Large Language Models for Automated Essay Scoring

Mar 6, 2026

Yes Human Eval Not Reported Agreement Not Reported
PONTE: Personalized Orchestration for Natural Language Trustworthy Explanations

Mar 6, 2026

Yes Human Eval Not Reported Agreement , Faithfulness Not Reported
VRM: Teaching Reward Models to Understand Authentic Human Preferences

Mar 5, 2026

Yes Human Eval Not Reported Coherence Not Reported
Beyond Rows to Reasoning: Agentic Retrieval for Multimodal Spreadsheet Understanding and Editing

Mar 6, 2026

No
Not Reported
Human Eval , Automatic Metrics Frtr Bench Accuracy , Cost Not Reported
Discovering Implicit Large Language Model Alignment Objectives

Feb 17, 2026

Yes Human Eval Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Balancing Multiple Objectives in Urban Traffic Control with Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback

Feb 24, 2026

Yes Human Eval Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
CARE: An Explainable Computational Framework for Assessing Client-Perceived Therapeutic Alliance Using Large Language Models

Feb 24, 2026

No
Not Reported
Human Eval , Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
Distill and Align Decomposition for Enhanced Claim Verification

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Human Eval , Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , F1 Not Reported
Claim Automation using Large Language Model

Feb 18, 2026

No
Not Reported
Human Eval , Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal Validating Political Position Predictions of Argume… Evaluating Austrian A-Level German Essays with Larg… PONTE: Personalized Orchestration for Natural Langu…
Human Feedback Pairwise PreferenceRubric RatingPairwise Preference
Evaluation Modes Human EvalHuman EvalHuman Eval
Benchmarks Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Metrics AgreementAgreementAgreement, Faithfulness
Quality Controls Gold Questions, Inter Annotator Agreement ReportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownDomain ExpertsDomain Experts
Annotation Unit PairwiseMulti Dim RubricUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. Beyond Rows to Reasoning: Agentic Retrieval for Multimodal Spreadsheet Understanding and Editing

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: human evaluation. Focus: Frtr-Bench / accuracy. Abstract: Supported by over 200 hours of expert human evaluation, BRTR achieves.

  2. PONTE: Personalized Orchestration for Natural Language Trustworthy Explanations

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: human evaluation + pairwise preferences. Focus: agreement. Abstract: It combines: (i) a low-dimensional preference model capturing stylistic requirements;.

  3. Evaluating Austrian A-Level German Essays with Large Language Models for Automated Essay Scoring

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: human evaluation + rubric ratings. Focus: agreement. Abstract: This paper investigates the application of state-of-the-art open-weight LLMs for.

  4. Validating Political Position Predictions of Arguments

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + pairwise preferences. Focus: agreement. Abstract: Real-world knowledge representation often requires capturing subjective, continuous attributes.

  5. VRM: Teaching Reward Models to Understand Authentic Human Preferences

    Adds human evaluation with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: human evaluation + pairwise preferences. Focus: coherence. Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved.

  6. Discovering Implicit Large Language Model Alignment Objectives

    Adds human evaluation with rubric ratings for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: human evaluation + rubric ratings. Abstract: Existing interpretation methods typically rely on pre-defined rubrics,.

  7. Balancing Multiple Objectives in Urban Traffic Control with Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback

    Adds human evaluation with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: human evaluation + pairwise preferences. Abstract: Preference-based RL offers an appealing alternative by learning.

  8. CARE: An Explainable Computational Framework for Assessing Client-Perceived Therapeutic Alliance Using Large Language Models

    Adds human evaluation for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: human evaluation. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: CARE also produces high-quality, contextually grounded rationales, validated by both automatic and.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 10% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (10% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).
  • 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 (4)
  • Rubric Rating (2)
  • Rlaif Or Synthetic Feedback (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Human Eval (10)
  • Automatic Metrics (4)

Top Benchmarks

  • Frtr Bench (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (4)
  • Agreement (3)
  • Coherence (1)
  • Cost (1)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (4)

Quality Controls

  • Gold Questions (1)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 60.0% · benchmarks 10.0% · metrics 80.0% · quality controls 10.0%.

Top Papers

  • Validating Political Position Predictions of Arguments

    Jordan Robinson, Angus R. Williams, Katie Atkinson, Anthony G. Cohn · Feb 20, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Human Eval

    Real-world knowledge representation often requires capturing subjective, continuous attributes -- such as political positions -- that conflict with pairwise validation, the widely accepted gold standard for human evaluation.

  • Evaluating Austrian A-Level German Essays with Large Language Models for Automated Essay Scoring

    Jonas Kubesch, Lena Huber, Clemens Havas · Mar 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Human Eval

    This paper investigates the application of state-of-the-art open-weight LLMs for the grading of Austrian A-level German texts, with a particular focus on rubric-based evaluation.

  • PONTE: Personalized Orchestration for Natural Language Trustworthy Explanations

    Vittoria Vineis, Matteo Silvestri, Lorenzo Antonelli, Filippo Betello, Gabriele Tolomei · Mar 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Human Eval

    To address these challenges, we present PONTE (Personalized Orchestration for Natural language Trustworthy Explanations), a human-in-the-loop framework for adaptive and reliable XAI narratives.

  • VRM: Teaching Reward Models to Understand Authentic Human Preferences

    Biao Liu, Ning Xu, Junming Yang, Hao Xu, Xin Geng · Mar 5, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Human Eval

    Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable success across diverse natural language tasks, yet the reward models employed for aligning LLMs often encounter challenges of reward hacking, where the approaches predominantly rely on…

  • Beyond Rows to Reasoning: Agentic Retrieval for Multimodal Spreadsheet Understanding and Editing

    Anmol Gulati, Sahil Sen, Waqar Sarguroh, Kevin Paul · Mar 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Human EvalAutomatic Metrics Long Horizon

    We introduce Beyond Rows to Reasoning (BRTR), a multimodal agentic framework for spreadsheet understanding that replaces single-pass retrieval with an iterative tool-calling loop, supporting end-to-end Excel workflows from complex analysis…

  • Discovering Implicit Large Language Model Alignment Objectives

    Edward Chen, Sanmi Koyejo, Carlos Guestrin · Feb 17, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Rubric Rating Human Eval

    To address these limitations, we introduce Obj-Disco, a framework that automatically decomposes an alignment reward signal into a sparse, weighted combination of human-interpretable natural language objectives.

  • Balancing Multiple Objectives in Urban Traffic Control with Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback

    Chenyang Zhao, Vinny Cahill, Ivana Dusparic · Feb 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise PreferenceRlaif Or Synthetic Feedback Human Eval

    Preference-based RL offers an appealing alternative by learning from human preferences over pairs of behavioural outcomes.

  • CARE: An Explainable Computational Framework for Assessing Client-Perceived Therapeutic Alliance Using Large Language Models

    Anqi Li, Chenxiao Wang, Yu Lu, Renjun Xu, Lizhi Ma · Feb 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Human EvalAutomatic Metrics

    Experiments show that CARE outperforms leading LLMs and substantially reduces the gap between counselor evaluations and client-perceived alliance, achieving over 70% higher Pearson correlation with client ratings.

  • Distill and Align Decomposition for Enhanced Claim Verification

    Jabez Magomere, Elena Kochkina, Samuel Mensah, Simerjot Kaur, Fernando Acero · Feb 25, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Human EvalAutomatic Metrics

    Across six evaluation settings, our trained 8B decomposer improves downstream verification performance to (71.75%) macro-F1, outperforming prompt-based approaches ((+1.99), (+6.24)) and existing RL methods ((+5.84)).

  • Claim Automation using Large Language Model

    Zhengda Mo, Zhiyu Quan, Eli O'Donohue, Kaiwen Zhong · Feb 18, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Human EvalAutomatic Metrics

    We assess this module using a multi-dimensional evaluation framework that combines automated semantic similarity metrics with human evaluation, enabling a rigorous examination of both practical utility and predictive accuracy.

Related Hubs

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.