Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Metric Hub

Accuracy & Pass Rate Metric Papers In CS.AI

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 58 papers are grouped in this metric page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 58 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: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: DROP. 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 15, 2026.

Papers: 58 Last published: Feb 15, 2026 Global RSS

Researcher Quick Triage

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

Metric Coverage

77.6%

45 sampled papers include metric names.

Benchmark Anchoring

19.0%

Papers with explicit dataset/benchmark anchors for fair comparison.

Quality Controls

6.9%

4 papers report calibration/adjudication/IAA controls.

  • 58 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

  • 34.8% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 77.6% of papers in this hub.
  • DROP is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Metric Notes (Expanded)

Metric-Driven Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (1.7% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 89.1% of hub papers (41/58); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 15.2% of hub papers (7/58); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Benchmark Context

  • DROP appears in 4.3% of hub papers (2/58); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • SWE-bench appears in 4.3% of hub papers (2/58); 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
CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cricket Analytics

Dec 26, 2025

Accuracy DROP, BIRD Automatic Metrics Gold Questions
AD-Bench: A Real-World, Trajectory-Aware Advertising Analytics Benchmark for LLM Agents

Feb 15, 2026

Pass@1, Pass@3 Ad Bench Simulation Env Not reported
Duel-Evolve: Reward-Free Test-Time Scaling via LLM Self-Preferences

Feb 25, 2026

Accuracy LiveCodeBench, Mathbench Automatic Metrics Not reported
AMA-Bench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Memory for Agentic Applications

Feb 26, 2026

Accuracy Ama Bench Automatic Metrics Not reported
SWE-Protégé: Learning to Selectively Collaborate With an Expert Unlocks Small Language Models as Software Engineering Agents

Feb 25, 2026

Pass@1, Latency SWE Bench, SWE Bench Verified 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
A Scalable Framework for Evaluating Health Language Models

Mar 30, 2025

Accuracy, Agreement Not reported Automatic Metrics Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
Dyslexify: A Mechanistic Defense Against Typographic Attacks in CLIP

Aug 28, 2025

Accuracy DROP Automatic Metrics Not reported
Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback

Jun 3, 2025

Pass@1 AIME Automatic Metrics Not reported
VerifyBench: Benchmarking Reference-based Reward Systems for Large Language Models

May 21, 2025

Accuracy Verifybench Automatic Metrics Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Moderate: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (34.8% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.7% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (26.1% 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 (19.6% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.9% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 56.5% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 8.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (19.6% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (23.9% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (DROP vs SWE-bench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 8.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (19.6% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (41)
  • Cost (7)
  • Latency (6)
  • Pass@1 (5)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (45)
  • Simulation Env (6)
  • Llm As Judge (3)
  • Human Eval (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • DROP (2)
  • SWE Bench (2)
  • SWE Bench Verified (2)
  • Ad Bench (1)

Agentic Mix

  • Long Horizon (19)
  • Multi Agent (7)
  • Web Browsing (2)

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Related Metric Hubs

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