Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Tool Use Papers (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 27, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 27, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Freeform. Frequently cited benchmark: BFCL. 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 30, 2026.

Papers: 10 Last published: Mar 30, 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.
  • 0 papers report explicit quality controls (calibration/adjudication/IAA).

Primary action: Use this page for scouting only; collect additional papers before attempting replication-critical comparisons.

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 12.5% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by critique/edit feedback.
  • automatic metrics appears in 70% of papers in this hub.
  • BFCL 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 Freeform; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (BFCL vs full-duplex-bench) before comparing methods.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • BFCL appears in 12.5% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • full-duplex-bench appears in 12.5% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 87.5% of hub papers (7/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 25% 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 (12.5% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

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

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (87.5% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.5% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is strong (37.5% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • 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 (12.5% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (BFCL vs full-duplex-bench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.
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.

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal Brief Is Better: Non-Monotonic Chain-of-Thought Bud… Full-Duplex-Bench-v3: Benchmarking Tool Use for Ful… The Ultimate Tutorial for AI-driven Scale Developme…
Human Feedback Not reportedNot reportedCritique Edit
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsNot reported
Benchmarks BFCLFull Duplex BenchNot reported
Metrics AccuracyAccuracy, Pass@1Not reported
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population UnknownUnknownDomain Experts
Annotation Unit FreeformUnknownUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. Act Wisely: Cultivating Meta-Cognitive Tool Use in Agentic Multimodal Models

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: The advent of agentic multimodal models has empowered systems to actively interact with.

  2. The Detection-Extraction Gap: Models Know the Answer Before They Can Say It

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Modern reasoning models continue generating long after the answer is already determined.

  3. AgentGL: Towards Agentic Graph Learning with LLMs via Reinforcement Learning

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly rely on agentic capabilities-iterative retrieval, tool use, and.

  4. The Ultimate Tutorial for AI-driven Scale Development in Generative Psychometrics: Releasing AIGENIE from its Bottle

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: critique/edit feedback. Abstract: Psychological scale development has traditionally required extensive expert involvement, iterative revision, and large-scale pilot.

  5. Brief Is Better: Non-Monotonic Chain-of-Thought Budget Effects in Function-Calling Language Agents

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: BFCL / accuracy. Abstract: How much should a language agent think before taking action?

  6. Full-Duplex-Bench-v3: Benchmarking Tool Use for Full-Duplex Voice Agents Under Real-World Disfluency

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: full-duplex-bench / accuracy. Abstract: We introduce Full-Duplex-Bench-v3 (FDB-v3), a benchmark for evaluating spoken language.

  7. Cognitive Friction: A Decision-Theoretic Framework for Bounded Deliberation in Tool-Using Agents

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Autonomous tool-using agents in networked environments must decide which information source to.

  8. HippoCamp: Benchmarking Contextual Agents on Personal Computers

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: We present HippoCamp, a new benchmark designed to evaluate agents' capabilities on.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (12.5% 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

  • Critique Edit (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (7)

Top Benchmarks

  • BFCL (1)
  • Full Duplex Bench (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (7)
  • Cost (2)
  • Latency (2)
  • Pass@1 (1)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (1)

Quality Controls

Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 10.0% · benchmarks 20.0% · metrics 70.0% · quality controls 0.0%.

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.