Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Long Horizon Papers (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 17, 2026). 100 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 17, 2026). 100 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: GSM8K. 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 Mar 22, 2026.

Papers: 100 Last published: Mar 22, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Long HorizonLast 30d

Researcher Quick Triage

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

Analysis blocks below are computed from the currently loaded sample (60 of 100 total papers in this hub).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

17

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

1

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

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

Primary action: Start with the top 2 papers in “Start Here”, then validate assumptions in the protocol matrix.

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 27.6% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 39% of papers in this hub.
  • GSM8K is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • 1 sampled papers report both human evaluation and LLM-as-judge, supporting direct agreement checks.
  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (1% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • GSM8K appears in 6.9% of hub papers (4/100); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • HotpotQA appears in 3.4% of hub papers (2/100); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 36.2% of hub papers (21/100); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 22.4% of hub papers (13/100); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Moderate: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.6% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (1.7% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (34.5% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (75.9% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.9% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is strong (53.4% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 100% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 1.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.9% coverage).
  • LLM-as-judge appears without enough inter-annotator agreement reporting.

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (GSM8K vs HotpotQA) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.
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
AgentHER: Hindsight Experience Replay for LLM Agent Trajectory Relabeling

Mar 22, 2026

Yes Human Eval , Llm As Judge WebArena , ToolBench Precision , Pass@1 Not Reported
TraceSafe: A Systematic Assessment of LLM Guardrails on Multi-Step Tool-Calling Trajectories

Apr 8, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Tracesafe Bench Accuracy Not Reported
Entropy trajectory shape predicts LLM reasoning reliability: A diagnostic study of uncertainty dynamics in chain-of-thought

Mar 19, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics GSM8K Accuracy , Calibration error Calibration
When Users Change Their Mind: Evaluating Interruptible Agents in Long-Horizon Web Navigation

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Simulation Env WebArena , Interruptbench Not Reported Not Reported
RASPRef: Retrieval-Augmented Self-Supervised Prompt Refinement for Large Reasoning Models

Mar 27, 2026

Yes Not Reported GSM8K Not Reported Not Reported
Kernel-Smith: A Unified Recipe for Evolutionary Kernel Optimization

Mar 30, 2026

Yes Not Reported Kernelbench Not Reported Not Reported
Signals: Trajectory Sampling and Triage for Agentic Interactions

Apr 1, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
Learning When to Act: Interval-Aware Reinforcement Learning with Predictive Temporal Structure

Mar 23, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Kappa Not Reported
ReDAct: Uncertainty-Aware Deferral for LLM Agents

Apr 8, 2026

No
Not Reported
Simulation Env ALFWorld Token cost Not Reported
DataSTORM: Deep Research on Large-Scale Databases using Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Storytelling

Apr 7, 2026

No
Not Reported
Human Eval Insightbench Recall Not Reported
Don't Overthink It: Inter-Rollout Action Agreement as a Free Adaptive-Compute Signal for LLM Agents

Apr 9, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics GSM8K Accuracy Not Reported
MemMachine: A Ground-Truth-Preserving Memory System for Personalized AI Agents

Apr 6, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics HotpotQA Accuracy , Recall Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal AgentHER: Hindsight Experience Replay for LLM Agent… TraceSafe: A Systematic Assessment of LLM Guardrail… Entropy trajectory shape predicts LLM reasoning rel…
Human Feedback DemonstrationsRed TeamNot reported
Evaluation Modes Human Eval, Llm As JudgeAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks WebArena, ToolBenchTracesafe BenchGSM8K
Metrics Precision, Pass@1AccuracyAccuracy, Calibration error
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedCalibration
Rater Population UnknownUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit TrajectoryTrajectoryScalar
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. Verify Before You Commit: Towards Faithful Reasoning in LLM Agents via Self-Auditing

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: faithfulness. Abstract: In large language model (LLM) agents, reasoning trajectories are treated as reliable internal.

  2. Don't Overthink It: Inter-Rollout Action Agreement as a Free Adaptive-Compute Signal for LLM Agents

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: GSM8K / accuracy. Abstract: Inference-time compute scaling has emerged as a powerful technique for improving.

  3. Towards Real-world Human Behavior Simulation: Benchmarking Large Language Models on Long-horizon, Cross-scenario, Heterogeneous Behavior Traces

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: simulation environments. Abstract: The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) has illuminated the potential for a general-purpose user.

  4. AgentHER: Hindsight Experience Replay for LLM Agent Trajectory Relabeling

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + demonstration data. Focus: WebArena / precision. Abstract: AgentHER realises this idea through a four-stage.

  5. DataSTORM: Deep Research on Large-Scale Databases using Exploratory Data Analysis and Data Storytelling

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation. Focus: Insightbench / recall. Abstract: We further introduce a new dataset built on ACLED, a.

  6. Reasoning or Rhetoric? An Empirical Analysis of Moral Reasoning Explanations in Large Language Models

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge. Focus: coherence. Abstract: Using an LLM-as-judge scoring pipeline validated across three judge models, we classify.

  7. When Users Change Their Mind: Evaluating Interruptible Agents in Long-Horizon Web Navigation

    Adds simulation environments with critique/edit feedback for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: simulation environments + critique/edit feedback. Focus: WebArena. Abstract: As LLM agents transition from short,.

  8. TraceSafe: A Systematic Assessment of LLM Guardrails on Multi-Step Tool-Calling Trajectories

    Adds automatic metrics with red-team protocols for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + red-team protocols. Focus: Tracesafe-Bench / accuracy. Abstract: As large language models.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 1.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.9% coverage).
  • 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 (8)
  • Critique Edit (4)
  • Demonstrations (2)
  • Red Team (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (39)
  • Simulation Env (8)
  • Human Eval (2)
  • Llm As Judge (2)

Top Benchmarks

  • GSM8K (4)
  • HotpotQA (2)
  • WebArena (2)
  • ALFWorld (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (21)
  • Cost (13)
  • Latency (4)
  • Pass@1 (4)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (4)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 26.7% · benchmarks 35.0% · metrics 73.3% · quality controls 1.7%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.