Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

General + Tool Use Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 11 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: MMLU. Common metric signal: 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: 11 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
GeneralTool Use

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 11 papers for General + Tool Use Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on MMLU, HotpotQA and metric focus on 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

  • MMLU appears in 18.2% of hub papers (2/11); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • HotpotQA appears in 9.1% of hub papers (1/11); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • success rate is reported in 18.2% of hub papers (2/11); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 9.1% of hub papers (1/11); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 30% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is strong (45.5% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (36.4% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

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

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (45.5% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (36.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. OmniGAIA: Towards Native Omni-Modal AI Agents

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

  2. 2. Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference

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

  3. 3. PyVision-RL: Forging Open Agentic Vision Models via RL

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

  4. 4. OpaqueToolsBench: Learning Nuances of Tool Behavior Through Interaction

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. MCPShield: A Security Cognition Layer for Adaptive Trust Calibration in Model Context Protocol Agents

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. RoPE-LIME: RoPE-Space Locality + Sparse-K Sampling for Efficient LLM Attribution

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. OmniRAG-Agent: Agentic Omnimodal Reasoning for Low-Resource Long Audio-Video Question Answering

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. STAR: Similarity-guided Teacher-Assisted Refinement for Super-Tiny Function Calling Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 9.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9.1% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=10, right_only=1

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

HotpotQA

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention HotpotQA.

Examples: RoPE-LIME: RoPE-Space Locality + Sparse-K Sampling for Efficient LLM Attribution

Benchmark Brief

Omnivideobench

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention Omnivideobench.

Examples: OmniRAG-Agent: Agentic Omnimodal Reasoning for Low-Resource Long Audio-Video Question Answering

Metric Brief

success rate

Coverage: 2 papers (18.2%)

2 papers (18.2%) mention success rate.

Examples: What Matters For Safety Alignment? , Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks

Metric Brief

accuracy

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention accuracy.

Examples: Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference

Metric Brief

cost

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention cost.

Examples: Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference

Top Papers

Related Hubs