Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Tool Use Papers (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequently cited benchmark: BrowseComp. Common metric signal: cost. 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 11, 2026.

Papers: 10 Last published: Feb 11, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Tool UseLast 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

2

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 2 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.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 16.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 50% of papers in this hub.
  • BrowseComp is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly ranking annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (BrowseComp vs imo-answerbench) before comparing methods.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • BrowseComp appears in 16.7% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • imo-answerbench appears in 16.7% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • cost is reported in 50% of hub papers (3/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • latency is reported in 33.3% of hub papers (2/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

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

  • Strong: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (83.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

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

Strengths

  • Most papers provide measurable evaluation context (50% benchmarks, 83.3% metrics).
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 100% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16.7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (BrowseComp vs imo-answerbench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both cost and latency.
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
Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence with 11B Active Parameters

Feb 11, 2026

Yes Not Reported LiveCodeBench , BrowseComp Latency , Cost Not Reported
Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference

Feb 25, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics MMLU Accuracy , Cost Not Reported
Zooming without Zooming: Region-to-Image Distillation for Fine-Grained Multimodal Perception

Feb 12, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Zoombench Latency Not Reported
REDSearcher: A Scalable and Cost-Efficient Framework for Long-Horizon Search Agents

Feb 15, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Recall , Cost Not Reported
A Benchmark for Deep Information Synthesis

Feb 24, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported F1 Not Reported
PyVision-RL: Forging Open Agentic Vision Models via RL

Feb 24, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
OpaqueToolsBench: Learning Nuances of Tool Behavior Through Interaction

Feb 16, 2026

No
Not Reported
Not Reported Opaquetoolsbench Not Reported Not Reported
MCPShield: A Security Cognition Layer for Adaptive Trust Calibration in Model Context Protocol Agents

Feb 15, 2026

No
Not Reported
Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Calibration
OmniGAIA: Towards Native Omni-Modal AI Agents

Feb 26, 2026

No
Not Reported
Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
SoK: Agentic Skills -- Beyond Tool Use in LLM Agents

Feb 24, 2026

No
Not Reported
Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence wi… Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for C… Zooming without Zooming: Region-to-Image Distillati…
Human Feedback Pairwise PreferenceNot reportedNot reported
Evaluation Modes Not reportedAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks LiveCodeBench, BrowseCompMMLUZoombench
Metrics Latency, CostAccuracy, CostLatency
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population Domain ExpertsUnknownUnknown
Annotation Unit UnknownUnknownUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

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

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: MMLU / accuracy. Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized inference across diverse natural language.

  2. A Benchmark for Deep Information Synthesis

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: f1. Abstract: When evaluated on DEEPSYNTH, 11 state-of-the-art LLMs and deep research agents achieve a.

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

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Abstract: Reinforcement learning for agentic multimodal models often suffers from interaction collapse, where models learn to.

  4. Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence with 11B Active Parameters

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: pairwise preferences. Focus: LiveCodeBench / latency. Abstract: To reach frontier-level intelligence, we design a scalable reinforcement learning.

  5. Zooming without Zooming: Region-to-Image Distillation for Fine-Grained Multimodal Perception

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: Zoombench / latency. Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) excel at broad visual understanding.

  6. REDSearcher: A Scalable and Cost-Efficient Framework for Long-Horizon Search Agents

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: recall. Abstract: Large language models are transitioning from generalpurpose knowledge engines to realworld problem.

  7. OmniGAIA: Towards Native Omni-Modal AI Agents

    Adds evaluation protocol evidence for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Abstract: Human intelligence naturally intertwines omni-modal perception -- spanning vision, audio, and language -- with complex reasoning.

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

    Adds evaluation protocol evidence for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Abstract: Agentic systems increasingly rely on reusable procedural capabilities, \textit{a.k.a., agentic skills}, to execute long-horizon workflows reliably.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16.7% 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 (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (5)

Top Benchmarks

  • BrowseComp (1)
  • Imo Answerbench (1)
  • LiveCodeBench (1)
  • MMLU (1)

Top Metrics

  • Cost (3)
  • Latency (2)
  • Accuracy (1)
  • F1 (1)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (1)

Quality Controls

Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 10.0% · benchmarks 40.0% · metrics 50.0% · quality controls 10.0%.

Top Papers

  • Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence with 11B Active Parameters

    Ailin Huang, Ang Li, Aobo Kong, Bin Wang, Binxing Jiao · Feb 11, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Pairwise Preference Tool Use

    We introduce Step 3.5 Flash, a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model that bridges frontier-level agentic intelligence and computational efficiency.

  • Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference

    Bo-Wei Chen, Chung-Chi Chen, An-Zi Yen · Feb 25, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Automatic Metrics Tool Use

    Experiments on the Massive Multitask Language Understanding (MMLU) benchmark show that our approach achieves accuracy comparable to the largest model while reducing computational costs by 20\% to 40\%.

  • Zooming without Zooming: Region-to-Image Distillation for Fine-Grained Multimodal Perception

    Lai Wei, Liangbo He, Jun Lan, Lingzhong Dong, Yutong Cai · Feb 12, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Automatic Metrics Tool Use

    To address this, we propose Region-to-Image Distillation, which transforms zooming from an inference-time tool into a training-time primitive, thereby internalizing the benefits of agentic zooming into a single forward pass of an MLLM.

  • REDSearcher: A Scalable and Cost-Efficient Framework for Long-Horizon Search Agents

    Zheng Chu, Xiao Wang, Jack Hong, Huiming Fan, Yuqi Huang · Feb 15, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Automatic Metrics Tool Use

    To address these challenges, we propose REDSearcher, a unified framework that codesigns complex task synthesis, midtraining, and posttraining for scalable searchagent optimization.

  • A Benchmark for Deep Information Synthesis

    Debjit Paul, Daniel Murphy, Milan Gritta, Ronald Cardenas, Victor Prokhorov · Feb 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Automatic Metrics Tool Use

    To address this, we introduce DEEPSYNTH, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate agents on realistic, time-consuming problems that combine information gathering, synthesis, and structured reasoning to produce insights.

  • PyVision-RL: Forging Open Agentic Vision Models via RL

    Shitian Zhao, Shaoheng Lin, Ming Li, Haoquan Zhang, Wenshuo Peng · Feb 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Automatic Metrics Tool Use

    Reinforcement learning for agentic multimodal models often suffers from interaction collapse, where models learn to reduce tool usage and multi-turn reasoning, limiting the benefits of agentic behavior.

  • OmniGAIA: Towards Native Omni-Modal AI Agents

    Xiaoxi Li, Wenxiang Jiao, Jiarui Jin, Shijian Wang, Guanting Dong · Feb 26, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Tool Use

    To bridge this gap, we introduce OmniGAIA, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate omni-modal agents on tasks necessitating deep reasoning and multi-turn tool execution across video, audio, and image modalities.

  • SoK: Agentic Skills -- Beyond Tool Use in LLM Agents

    Yanna Jiang, Delong Li, Haiyu Deng, Baihe Ma, Xu Wang · Feb 24, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Tool Use

    Agentic systems increasingly rely on reusable procedural capabilities, a.k.a., agentic skills, to execute long-horizon workflows reliably.

  • OpaqueToolsBench: Learning Nuances of Tool Behavior Through Interaction

    Skyler Hallinan, Thejas Venkatesh, Xiang Ren, Sai Praneeth Karimireddy, Ashwin Paranjape · Feb 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Tool Use

    Tool-calling is essential for Large Language Model (LLM) agents to complete real-world tasks.

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

    Zhenhong Zhou, Yuanhe Zhang, Hongwei Cai, Moayad Aloqaily, Ouns Bouachir · Feb 15, 2026 · Citations: 0

    Tool Use

    The Model Context Protocol (MCP) standardizes tool use for LLM-based agents and enable third-party servers.

Related Hubs

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