Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Coherence In CS.AI Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Frequently cited benchmark: Retrieval. Common metric signal: coherence. 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 20, 2026.

Papers: 10 Last published: Feb 20, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 10 papers for Coherence In CS.AI Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, Mle-Bench and metric focus on coherence, 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 40% of hub papers (4/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Mle-Bench appears in 10% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • coherence is reported in 100% of hub papers (10/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 10% of hub papers (1/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is strong (60% 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).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (60% 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 a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Improving Neural Topic Modeling with Semantically-Grounded Soft Label Distributions

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

  2. 2. Protecting Language Models Against Unauthorized Distillation through Trace Rewriting

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

  3. 3. From Pixels to Policies: Reinforcing Spatial Reasoning in Language Models for Content-Aware Layout Design

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

  4. 4. How Well Can LLM Agents Simulate End-User Security and Privacy Attitudes and Behaviors?

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Toward Ultra-Long-Horizon Agentic Science: Cognitive Accumulation for Machine Learning Engineering

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. KD-OCT: Efficient Knowledge Distillation for Clinical-Grade Retinal OCT Classification

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Beyond Fact Retrieval: Episodic Memory for RAG with Generative Semantic Workspaces

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Beyond a Million Tokens: Benchmarking and Enhancing Long-Term Memory in LLMs

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=6, right_only=4

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs