Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Calibration In CS.AI Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 11 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: MMLU. Common metric signal: calibration. 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 23, 2026.

Papers: 11 Last published: Feb 23, 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 Calibration In CS.AI Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, with frequent benchmark focus on MMLU, Retrieval and metric focus on calibration, 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

  • MMLU appears in 18.2% of hub papers (2/11); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Retrieval appears in 18.2% of hub papers (2/11); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • calibration is reported in 100% of hub papers (11/11); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 36.4% of hub papers (4/11); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 45% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is strong (100% vs 30% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is strong (36.4% 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 a replication risk (18.2% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is strong (100% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (36.4% 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. KNIGHT: Knowledge Graph-Driven Multiple-Choice Question Generation with Adaptive Hardness Calibration

    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. Who can we trust? LLM-as-a-jury for Comparative Assessment

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

  4. 4. Team of Thoughts: Efficient Test-time Scaling of Agentic Systems through Orchestrated Tool Calling

    Adds automatic metrics with expert verification for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. PMG: Parameterized Motion Generator for Human-like Locomotion Control

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Building Safe and Deployable Clinical Natural Language Processing under Temporal Leakage Constraints

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Chlorophyll-a Mapping and Prediction in the Mar Menor Lagoon Using C2RCC-Processed Sentinel 2 Imagery

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. LogiPart: Local Large Language Models for Data Exploration at Scale with Logical Partitioning

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Rater population is under-specified (18.2% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Cross-page comparisons should be benchmark- and metric-matched to avoid protocol confounding.

Research Utility Links

Benchmark Brief

MMLU

Coverage: 2 papers (18.2%)

2 papers (18.2%) mention MMLU.

Examples: KNIGHT: Knowledge Graph-Driven Multiple-Choice Question Generation with Adaptive Hardness Calibration , Humanity's Last Exam

Benchmark Brief

Retrieval

Coverage: 2 papers (18.2%)

2 papers (18.2%) mention Retrieval.

Examples: KNIGHT: Knowledge Graph-Driven Multiple-Choice Question Generation with Adaptive Hardness Calibration , Humanity's Last Exam

Benchmark Brief

GSM8K

Coverage: 1 papers (9.1%)

1 papers (9.1%) mention GSM8K.

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

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs