Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Agreement + Automatic Metrics Metric Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 11 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequent quality control: Inter Annotator Agreement Reported. Frequently cited benchmark: Contentbench. Common metric signal: agreement. 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 24, 2026.

Papers: 11 Last published: Feb 24, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 11 papers for Agreement + Automatic Metrics Metric Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, human evaluation, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on Contentbench, GSM8K and metric focus on agreement, accuracy. 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

  • Contentbench appears in 9.1% of hub papers (1/11); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • GSM8K appears in 9.1% of hub papers (1/11); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • agreement is reported in 100% of hub papers (11/11); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 63.6% of hub papers (7/11); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Tighten coverage on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.3% vs 45% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is strong (45.5% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% 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 (18.2% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.3% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is strong (45.5% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.3% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. GATES: Self-Distillation under Privileged Context with Consensus Gating

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

  2. 2. Pyramid MoA: A Probabilistic Framework for Cost-Optimized Anytime Inference

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

  3. 3. Can Large Language Models Replace Human Coders? Introducing ContentBench

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

  4. 4. Beyond Understanding: Evaluating the Pragmatic Gap in LLMs' Cultural Processing of Figurative Language

    Include a human-eval paper to anchor calibration against automated judge settings.

  5. 5. 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.

  6. 6. Multi-Objective Alignment of Language Models for Personalized Psychotherapy

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Revisiting Northrop Frye's Four Myths Theory with Large Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Mechanistic Indicators of Steering Effectiveness in Large Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Rater population is under-specified (18.2% coverage).
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (18.2% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).
  • 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=10

1 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=1, left_only=10, right_only=0

1 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

human_eval vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=1

0 papers use both Human Eval and Simulation Env.

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs