Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Metric Hub

Accuracy + Long Horizon Metric Papers (Last 90 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 20 papers are grouped in this metric page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 20 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequently cited benchmark: BrowseComp. 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: 20 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS

Researcher Quick Triage

Use this page to compare metric behavior across protocols and benchmarks before selecting your reporting stack. Quality band: Medium .

Metric Coverage

100.0%

20 sampled papers include metric names.

Benchmark Anchoring

30.0%

Papers with explicit dataset/benchmark anchors for fair comparison.

Quality Controls

0.0%

0 papers report calibration/adjudication/IAA controls.

  • 20 papers are not low-signal flagged in this sample.
  • Use the protocol matrix below to avoid comparing metrics across incompatible eval setups.

Primary action: Use the top metric-reliable papers first, then compare benchmark context in the matrix before drawing conclusions.

Why This Matters (Expanded)

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • automatic metrics appears in 100% of papers in this hub.
  • BrowseComp is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
  • long-horizon tasks appears in 100% of papers, indicating agentic evaluation demand.
Metric Notes (Expanded)

Metric-Driven 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 trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (BrowseComp vs Ama-Bench) before comparing methods.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 100% of hub papers (20/20); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 25% of hub papers (5/20); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Benchmark Context

  • BrowseComp appears in 10% of hub papers (2/20); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Ama-Bench appears in 5% of hub papers (1/20); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Start Here (Metric-Reliable First 6)

Ranked for metric reporting completeness and comparability.

Metric Protocol Matrix (Top 10)

Compare metric, benchmark, and evaluation context side by side.

Paper Metrics Benchmarks Eval Modes Quality Controls
AMA-Bench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Memory for Agentic Applications

Feb 26, 2026

Accuracy Ama Bench Automatic Metrics Not reported
D-COT: Disciplined Chain-of-Thought Learning for Efficient Reasoning in Small Language Models

Feb 25, 2026

Accuracy MMLU, MMLU Pro Automatic Metrics Not reported
Search More, Think Less: Rethinking Long-Horizon Agentic Search for Efficiency and Generalization

Feb 26, 2026

Accuracy, Latency GAIA, BrowseComp Automatic Metrics Not reported
BankMathBench: A Benchmark for Numerical Reasoning in Banking Scenarios

Feb 19, 2026

Accuracy Bankmathbench Automatic Metrics Not reported
The Sufficiency-Conciseness Trade-off in LLM Self-Explanation from an Information Bottleneck Perspective

Feb 15, 2026

Accuracy, Conciseness ARC Challenge Automatic Metrics Not reported
Towards Efficient Agents: A Co-Design of Inference Architecture and System

Dec 20, 2025

Accuracy, Latency BrowseComp Automatic Metrics Not reported
Test-Time Scaling with Diffusion Language Models via Reward-Guided Stitching

Feb 26, 2026

Accuracy, Latency Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
GATES: Self-Distillation under Privileged Context with Consensus Gating

Feb 24, 2026

Accuracy Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Continuous Telemonitoring of Heart Failure using Personalised Speech Dynamics

Feb 23, 2026

Accuracy, Cost Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Search-P1: Path-Centric Reward Shaping for Stable and Efficient Agentic RAG Training

Feb 26, 2026

Accuracy Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% 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 (30% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (5% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (20% 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 (5% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (20% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (BrowseComp vs Ama-Bench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (5% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (20)
  • Cost (5)
  • Latency (4)
  • Throughput (2)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (20)

Top Benchmarks

  • BrowseComp (2)
  • Ama Bench (1)
  • ARC Challenge (1)
  • Bankmathbench (1)

Agentic Mix

  • Long Horizon (20)
  • Multi Agent (1)
  • Web Browsing (1)

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Related Metric Hubs

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