Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Tool Use Papers (Last 90 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 15 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 15 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: 15 Last published: Feb 11, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Tool UseLast 90d

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%

15 / 15 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

  • 22.2% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 53.3% 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 11.1% of hub papers (1/15); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • imo-answerbench appears in 11.1% of hub papers (1/15); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • cost is reported in 33.3% of hub papers (3/15); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 22.2% of hub papers (2/15); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (22.2% 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 (33.3% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (77.8% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (22.2% 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 (11.1% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (22.2% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (BrowseComp vs imo-answerbench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both cost and accuracy.
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 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. What Matters For Safety Alignment?

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: automatic metrics + red-team protocols. Focus: success rate. Abstract: This paper presents a comprehensive empirical study on.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. EnsembleLink: Accurate Record Linkage Without Training Data

    Adds automatic metrics for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Record linkage, the process of matching records that refer to the same.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.1% 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)
  • Red Team (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (8)

Top Benchmarks

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

Top Metrics

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

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (1)

Quality Controls

Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 13.3% · benchmarks 40.0% · metrics 53.3% · quality controls 6.7%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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