Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Metric Hub

Accuracy & Pass Rate Metric Papers In CS.LG

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 19 papers are grouped in this metric page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 19 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequently cited benchmark: Ad-Bench. 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: 19 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: Medium .

Metric Coverage

94.7%

18 sampled papers include metric names.

Benchmark Anchoring

21.1%

Papers with explicit dataset/benchmark anchors for fair comparison.

Quality Controls

0.0%

0 papers report calibration/adjudication/IAA controls.

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

Primary action: Treat this as directional signal only; metric reporting is present but benchmark anchoring is still thin.

Why This Matters (Expanded)

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 22.2% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by expert verification.
  • automatic metrics appears in 89.5% of papers in this hub.
  • Ad-Bench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
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.
  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 83.3% of hub papers (15/19); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 16.7% of hub papers (3/19); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Benchmark Context

  • Ad-Bench appears in 5.6% of hub papers (1/19); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Ama-Bench appears in 5.6% of hub papers (1/19); 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
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
Gradient Regularization Prevents Reward Hacking in Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback and Verifiable Rewards

Feb 20, 2026

Accuracy, Win rate Not reported Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics Not reported
APEX-Agents

Jan 20, 2026

Pass@1 Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Precise Attribute Intensity Control in Large Language Models via Targeted Representation Editing

Oct 14, 2025

Accuracy 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
Search-P1: Path-Centric Reward Shaping for Stable and Efficient Agentic RAG Training

Feb 26, 2026

Accuracy Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Distill and Align Decomposition for Enhanced Claim Verification

Feb 25, 2026

Accuracy, F1 Not reported Human Eval, Automatic Metrics Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

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 (22.2% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

  • Moderate: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.8% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.8% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 61.1% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • LLM-as-judge appears without enough inter-annotator agreement reporting.

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (Ad-Bench 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.
  • LLM-as-judge appears without enough inter-annotator agreement reporting.
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (15)
  • Cost (3)
  • Pass@1 (3)
  • Latency (2)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (17)
  • Simulation Env (3)
  • Llm As Judge (2)
  • Human Eval (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Ad Bench (1)
  • Ama Bench (1)
  • LiveCodeBench (1)
  • Mathbench (1)

Agentic Mix

  • Long Horizon (11)
  • Web Browsing (1)

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Related Metric Hubs

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