Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Metric Hub

Accuracy & Pass Rate Metric Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 88 papers are grouped in this metric page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 88 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: 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 15, 2026.

Papers: 88 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 .

Analysis blocks are computed from the loaded sample (60 of 88 papers).

Metric Coverage

98.3%

59 sampled papers include metric names.

Benchmark Anchoring

30.0%

Papers with explicit dataset/benchmark anchors for fair comparison.

Quality Controls

10.0%

6 papers report calibration/adjudication/IAA controls.

  • 60 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

  • 32.9% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by expert verification.
  • automatic metrics appears in 84.1% of papers in this hub.
  • BrowseComp 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 (2.3% 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 92.1% of hub papers (70/88); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 17.1% of hub papers (13/88); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Benchmark Context

  • BrowseComp appears in 3.9% of hub papers (3/88); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • DROP appears in 2.6% of hub papers (2/88); 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
HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam

Feb 15, 2026

Accuracy HLE Automatic Metrics Adjudication
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
Personalized Prediction of Perceived Message Effectiveness Using Large Language Model Based Digital Twins

Feb 23, 2026

Accuracy, F1 Not reported Automatic Metrics Inter Annotator Agreement 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
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
Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference

Feb 25, 2026

Accuracy, Cost MMLU Automatic Metrics Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Moderate: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (32.9% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.9% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% 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 (21.1% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.7% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 55.3% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 7.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (21.1% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (23.7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

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

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 7.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (21.1% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (70)
  • Cost (13)
  • Latency (8)
  • Pass@1 (6)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (74)
  • Simulation Env (8)
  • Human Eval (5)
  • Llm As Judge (5)

Top Benchmarks

  • BrowseComp (3)
  • DROP (2)
  • MMLU (2)
  • SWE Bench (2)

Agentic Mix

  • Long Horizon (30)
  • Multi Agent (9)
  • Web Browsing (4)
  • Tool Use (1)

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Related Metric Hubs

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