Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Accuracy + Automatic Metrics Metric Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 245 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: Retrieval. 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 26, 2026.

Papers: 245 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 245 papers for Accuracy + Automatic Metrics Metric Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, MATH and metric focus on accuracy, cost. Use the grounded sections below to prioritize reproducible protocol choices, benchmark-matched comparisons, and judge-vs-human evaluation checks.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

Protocol Takeaways

Benchmark Interpretation

  • Retrieval appears in 13.1% of hub papers (32/245); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MATH appears in 4.1% of hub papers (10/245); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 100% of hub papers (245/245); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 11.4% of hub papers (28/245); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (8.2% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (7.3% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (32.7% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (11.4% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (8.2% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (8.2% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (7.3% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (32.7% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (11.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (8.2% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. AgentDropoutV2: Optimizing Information Flow in Multi-Agent Systems via Test-Time Rectify-or-Reject Pruning

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  2. 2. InnerQ: Hardware-aware Tuning-free Quantization of KV Cache for Large Language Models

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  3. 3. Assessing Deanonymization Risks with Stylometry-Assisted LLM Agent

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  4. 4. Quantity Convergence, Quality Divergence: Disentangling Fluency and Accuracy in L2 Mandarin Prosody

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Make It Hard to Hear, Easy to Learn: Long-Form Bengali ASR and Speaker Diarization via Extreme Augmentation and Perfect Alignment

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. MoDora: Tree-Based Semi-Structured Document Analysis System

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

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

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Replacing Multi-Step Assembly of Data Preparation Pipelines with One-Step LLM Pipeline Generation for Table QA

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 7.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.4% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs llm_as_judge

both=0, left_only=7, right_only=1

0 papers use both Human Eval and Llm As Judge.

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=7, left_only=0, right_only=238

7 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=1, left_only=0, right_only=244

1 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs