Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Accuracy + Simulation Env Metric Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 18 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. 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 25, 2026.

Papers: 18 Last published: Feb 25, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 18 papers for Accuracy + Simulation Env Metric Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on BrowseComp, GSM8K 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

  • BrowseComp appears in 5.6% of hub papers (1/18); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • GSM8K appears in 5.6% of hub papers (1/18); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 100% of hub papers (18/18); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 11.1% of hub papers (2/18); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Abstract Evidence Highlights

Direct snippets from paper abstracts to ground protocol and benchmark interpretation.

Human-eval abstract signal: Bangla-English code-mixing is widespread across South Asian social media, yet resources for implicit meaning identification in this setting remain scarce.

Human-eval abstract signal: Sarcasm detection in multilingual and code-mixed environments remains a challenging task for natural language processing models due to structural variations, informal expressions, and low-resource linguistic availability.

BrowseComp benchmark signal: The dataset contains 9,087 manually annotated sentences labeled for humor, sarcasm, offensiveness, and vulgarity.

accuracy metric signal: The results indicate that the smaller, sequentially fine-tuned DistilBERT model achieved the highest overall accuracy of 84%, outperforming all of the LLMs in zero and few-shot set ups, using minimal LLM generated code-mixed data...

accuracy metric signal: Zero-shot models achieve competitive micro-F1 scores but low exact match accuracy.

Protocol abstract signal: Inspecting Chain-of-Thought reasoning is among the most common means of understanding why an LLM produced its output.

Protocol abstract signal: This study presents an ensemble technique, SPQ (SVD-Pruning-Quantization), for large language model (LLM) compression that combines variance-retained singular value decomposition (SVD), activation-based pruning, and post-training linear quantization.

Protocol abstract signal: Chain-of-thought (CoT) monitors are LLM-based systems that analyze reasoning traces to detect when outputs may exhibit attributes of interest, such as test-hacking behavior during code generation.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% 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 (11.1% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

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

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

Papers with known rater population

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

Papers with known annotation unit

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Small Wins Big: Comparing Large Language Models and Domain Fine-Tuned Models for Sarcasm Detection in Code-Mixed Hinglish Text

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

  2. 2. MixSarc: A Bangla-English Code-Mixed Corpus for Implicit Meaning Identification

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

  3. 3. Counterfactual Simulation Training for Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness

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

  4. 4. SPQ: An Ensemble Technique for Large Language Model Compression

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Analyzing and Improving Chain-of-Thought Monitorability Through Information Theory

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Context-Aware Mapping of 2D Drawing Annotations to 3D CAD Features Using LLM-Assisted Reasoning for Manufacturing Automation

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Quecto-V1: Empirical Analysis of 8-bit Quantized Small Language Models for On-Device Legal Retrieval

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Physical Commonsense Reasoning for Lower-Resourced Languages and Dialects: a Study on Basque

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

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 Links

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=1, left_only=0, right_only=17

1 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=18, left_only=0, right_only=0

18 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs human_eval

both=1, left_only=17, right_only=0

1 papers use both Simulation Env and Human Eval.

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs