Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Agreement + General Metric Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 13 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Human Eval, Automatic Metrics. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequent quality control: Inter Annotator Agreement Reported. Frequently cited benchmark: Retrieval. 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: 13 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 13 papers for Agreement + General Metric Papers. Dominant protocol signals include human evaluation, automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval 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

  • Retrieval appears in 7.7% of hub papers (1/13); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • agreement is reported in 100% of hub papers (13/13); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 23.1% of hub papers (3/13); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (23.1% vs 45% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is strong (61.5% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (7.7% 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 (0% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (23.1% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is strong (61.5% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (7.7% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

Papers with known rater population

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

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.1% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. PreScience: A Benchmark for Forecasting Scientific Contributions

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

  2. 2. Yor-Sarc: A gold-standard dataset for sarcasm detection in a low-resource African language

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

  3. 3. Validating Political Position Predictions of Arguments

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

  4. 4. HEART: A Unified Benchmark for Assessing Humans and LLMs in Emotional Support Dialogue

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to assess judge design and agreement assumptions.

  5. 5. Human-like Affective Cognition in Foundation Models

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to assess judge design and agreement assumptions.

  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. Are LLMs Ready to Replace Bangla Annotators?

    Adds human evaluation for broader coverage within this hub.

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

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Rater population is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (23.1% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs llm_as_judge

both=1, left_only=6, right_only=1

1 papers use both Human Eval and Llm As Judge.

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=7, right_only=4

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=2, right_only=4

0 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs