Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Metric Hub

Cost + General Metric Papers (Last 90 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 15 papers are grouped in this metric page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 15 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Common annotation unit: Freeform. Frequently cited benchmark: ALFWorld. Common metric signal: cost. 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 Jan 29, 2026.

Papers: 15 Last published: Jan 29, 2026 Global RSS

Researcher Quick Triage

Use this page to compare metric behavior across protocols and benchmarks before selecting your reporting stack. Quality band: Medium .

Metric Coverage

100.0%

15 sampled papers include metric names.

Benchmark Anchoring

20.0%

Papers with explicit dataset/benchmark anchors for fair comparison.

Quality Controls

0.0%

0 papers report calibration/adjudication/IAA controls.

  • 15 papers are not low-signal flagged in this sample.
  • Use the protocol matrix below to avoid comparing metrics across incompatible eval setups.

Primary action: Treat this as directional signal only; metric reporting is present but benchmark anchoring is still thin.

Why This Matters (Expanded)

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 26.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 80% of papers in this hub.
  • ALFWorld is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Metric Notes (Expanded)

Metric-Driven Protocol Takeaways

  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Rater context is mostly unspecified rater pools, and annotation is commonly Freeform; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.

Metric Interpretation

  • cost is reported in 100% of hub papers (15/15); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 46.7% of hub papers (7/15); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Benchmark Context

  • ALFWorld appears in 6.7% of hub papers (1/15); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • BrowseComp appears in 6.7% of hub papers (1/15); 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
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
Embodied Task Planning via Graph-Informed Action Generation with Large Language Model

Jan 29, 2026

Pass@1, Cost ALFWorld Simulation Env Not reported
CAMEL: Confidence-Gated Reflection for Reward Modeling

Feb 24, 2026

Accuracy, Cost Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
RLHFless: Serverless Computing for Efficient RLHF

Feb 26, 2026

Cost Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Orchestration-Free Customer Service Automation: A Privacy-Preserving and Flowchart-Guided Framework

Feb 17, 2026

Cost Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
HiSAC: Hierarchical Sparse Activation Compression for Ultra-long Sequence Modeling in Recommenders

Feb 24, 2026

Latency, Cost Not reported Not reported Not reported
Luna-2: Scalable Single-Token Evaluation with Small Language Models

Feb 20, 2026

Accuracy, Latency Not reported Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics Not reported
DeepPresenter: Environment-Grounded Reflection for Agentic Presentation Generation

Feb 26, 2026

Cost Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Replacing Multi-Step Assembly of Data Preparation Pipelines with One-Step LLM Pipeline Generation for Table QA

Feb 26, 2026

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (26.7% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

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

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

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

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Agentic evaluation appears in 60% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (20% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Stratify by benchmark (ALFWorld vs BrowseComp) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both cost and accuracy.

Recommended Queries

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 Snapshot (Detailed)

Top Metrics

  • Cost (15)
  • Accuracy (7)
  • Inference cost (4)
  • Latency (4)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (12)
  • Simulation Env (3)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • ALFWorld (1)
  • BrowseComp (1)
  • GAIA (1)
  • MMLU (1)

Agentic Mix

  • Long Horizon (7)
  • Multi Agent (1)
  • Tool Use (1)
  • Web Browsing (1)

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Related Metric Hubs

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