Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Web Browsing + Simulation Env Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Simulation Env, Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequently cited benchmark: APPS. Common metric signal: cost. Newest paper in this set is from Feb 24, 2026.

Papers: 10 Last published: Feb 24, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Web BrowsingSimulation Env

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page covers 10 papers centered on Web Browsing + Simulation Env Papers. Common evaluation modes include Simulation Env, Automatic Metrics, with benchmark emphasis on APPS, BrowseComp. Use the anchored takeaways below to compare protocol choices and identify papers with stronger evidence depth.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

Protocol Takeaways

Benchmark Interpretation

  • APPS appears as a recurring benchmark anchor in this page.
  • 1 papers (10%) mention APPS.
  • Most common evaluation modes: Simulation Env.

Metric Interpretation

  • cost is a common reported metric and should be paired with protocol context before ranking methods.
  • 2 papers (20%) mention cost.
  • Most common evaluation modes: Simulation Env.

Researcher Checklist

  • Papers with explicit human feedback: Coverage is usable but incomplete (30% vs 45% target).
  • Papers reporting quality controls: Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).
  • Papers naming benchmarks/datasets: Coverage is strong (40% vs 35% target).
  • Papers naming evaluation metrics: Coverage is strong (50% vs 35% target).
  • Papers with known rater population: Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 35% target).
  • Papers with known annotation unit: Coverage is usable but incomplete (30% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is usable but incomplete (30% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (50% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is usable but incomplete (30% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Efficient Hierarchical Any-Angle Path Planning on Multi-Resolution 3D Grids

    Start with this anchor paper for scope and protocol framing. Covers Simulation Env.

  2. 2. SoK: Agentic Skills -- Beyond Tool Use in LLM Agents

    Covers Simulation Env.

  3. 3. Contextual Safety Reasoning and Grounding for Open-World Robots

    Covers Simulation Env.

  4. 4. MemoryArena: Benchmarking Agent Memory in Interdependent Multi-Session Agentic Tasks

    Covers Simulation Env. Includes human-feedback signal: Pairwise Preference.

  5. 5. BrowseComp-$V^3$: A Visual, Vertical, and Verifiable Benchmark for Multimodal Browsing Agents

    Covers Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env.

  6. 6. UI-Venus-1.5 Technical Report

    Covers Simulation Env.

  7. 7. Aerial Vision-Language Navigation with a Unified Framework for Spatial, Temporal and Embodied Reasoning

    Covers Simulation Env.

  8. 8. MoMaGen: Generating Demonstrations under Soft and Hard Constraints for Multi-Step Bimanual Mobile Manipulation

    Covers Simulation Env. Includes human-feedback signal: Demonstrations.

Known Limitations

  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper method details may be missing.
  • Extraction fields are conservative and can under-report implicit protocol details.
  • Cross-page comparisons should control for benchmark and metric mismatch.

Research Utility Links

simulation_env vs automatic_metrics

both=1, left_only=9, right_only=0

1 papers use both Simulation Env and Automatic Metrics.

Top Papers

Related Hubs