Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Long Horizon Papers (Last 90 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 76 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 76 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: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: ALFWorld. 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 15, 2026.

Papers: 76 Last published: Feb 15, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Long HorizonLast 90d

Researcher Quick Triage

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

Analysis blocks below are computed from the currently loaded sample (60 of 76 total papers in this hub).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

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

Replication-Ready Set

10

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 10 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 0 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 2 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.

Why This Matters (Expanded)

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 17.5% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 48.7% of papers in this hub.
  • ALFWorld is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (1.3% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • ALFWorld appears in 5.3% of hub papers (3/76); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MLE-Bench appears in 5.3% of hub papers (3/76); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 35.1% of hub papers (20/76); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 21.1% of hub papers (12/76); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (17.5% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (3.5% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (33.3% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (73.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (10.5% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is strong (43.9% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Agentic evaluation appears in 100% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 3.5% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (10.5% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Stratify by benchmark (ALFWorld vs MLE-Bench) 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 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
AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertising Analytics Benchmark for LLM Agents

Feb 15, 2026

Yes Simulation Env Ad Bench Pass@1 , Pass@3 Not Reported
KLong: Training LLM Agent for Extremely Long-horizon Tasks

Feb 19, 2026

Yes Not Reported SWE Bench , SWE Bench Verified Not Reported Not Reported
Tutoring Large Language Models to be Domain-adaptive, Precise, and Safe

Feb 14, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Precision Not Reported
AMA-Bench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Memory for Agentic Applications

Feb 26, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Ama Bench Accuracy Not Reported
SWE-Protégé: Learning to Selectively Collaborate With an Expert Unlocks Small Language Models as Software Engineering Agents

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics SWE Bench , SWE Bench Verified Pass@1 , Latency Not Reported
D-COT: Disciplined Chain-of-Thought Learning for Efficient Reasoning in Small Language Models

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics MMLU , MMLU Pro Accuracy Not Reported
Search More, Think Less: Rethinking Long-Horizon Agentic Search for Efficiency and Generalization

Feb 26, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics GAIA , BrowseComp Accuracy , Latency Not Reported
BankMathBench: A Benchmark for Numerical Reasoning in Banking Scenarios

Feb 19, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Bankmathbench Accuracy Not Reported
The Sufficiency-Conciseness Trade-off in LLM Self-Explanation from an Information Bottleneck Perspective

Feb 15, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics ARC Challenge Accuracy , Conciseness Not Reported
AceGRPO: Adaptive Curriculum Enhanced Group Relative Policy Optimization for Autonomous Machine Learning Engineering

Feb 8, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics MLE Bench Latency Not Reported
Decoupling Strategy and Execution in Task-Focused Dialogue via Goal-Oriented Preference Optimization

Jan 24, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Task success Not Reported
APEX-Agents

Jan 20, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Pass@1 Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertisin… KLong: Training LLM Agent for Extremely Long-horizo… Tutoring Large Language Models to be Domain-adaptiv…
Human Feedback Expert VerificationRubric RatingPairwise Preference
Evaluation Modes Simulation EnvNot reportedNot reported
Benchmarks Ad BenchSWE Bench, SWE Bench VerifiedNot reported
Metrics Pass@1, Pass@3Not reportedPrecision
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population Domain ExpertsUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit TrajectoryMulti Dim RubricTrajectory
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. The Trinity of Consistency as a Defining Principle for General World Models

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: simulation environments. Focus: Cow-Bench. Abstract: CoW-Bench evaluates both video generation models and UMMs under a unified evaluation protocol.

  2. Test-Time Scaling with Diffusion Language Models via Reward-Guided Stitching

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Reasoning with large language models often benefits from generating multiple chains-of-thought, but existing.

  3. DeepPresenter: Environment-Grounded Reflection for Agentic Presentation Generation

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: cost. Abstract: Presentation generation requires deep content research, coherent visual design, and iterative refinement based.

  4. FrameRef: A Framing Dataset and Simulation Testbed for Modeling Bounded Rational Information Health

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation. Abstract: Human evaluation further confirms that FrameRef's generated framings measurably affect human judgment.

  5. AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertising Analytics Benchmark for LLM Agents

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: simulation environments + expert verification. Focus: Ad-Bench / pass@1. Abstract: While Large Language Model (LLM) agents have.

  6. Fast-ThinkAct: Efficient Vision-Language-Action Reasoning via Verbalizable Latent Planning

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: simulation environments + pairwise preferences. Focus: latency. Abstract: Fast-ThinkAct learns to reason efficiently with latent CoTs.

  7. Decoupling Strategy and Execution in Task-Focused Dialogue via Goal-Oriented Preference Optimization

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + pairwise preferences. Focus: task success. Abstract: Large language models show potential.

  8. APEX-Agents

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: pass@1. Abstract: We open source the APEX-Agents benchmark.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 3.5% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (10.5% 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 (6)
  • Rubric Rating (3)
  • Expert Verification (2)
  • Critique Edit (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (37)
  • Simulation Env (14)
  • Human Eval (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • ALFWorld (3)
  • MLE Bench (3)
  • SWE Bench (3)
  • SWE Bench Verified (3)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (20)
  • Cost (12)
  • Latency (8)
  • Pass@1 (5)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (6)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)
  • Calibration (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 16.7% · benchmarks 31.7% · metrics 65.0% · quality controls 3.3%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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