Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Metric Hub

Cost + Long Horizon Metric Papers (Last 120 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 12 papers are grouped in this metric page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 12 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. 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: 12 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%

12 sampled papers include metric names.

Benchmark Anchoring

25.0%

Papers with explicit dataset/benchmark anchors for fair comparison.

Quality Controls

0.0%

0 papers report calibration/adjudication/IAA controls.

  • 12 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

  • automatic metrics appears in 83.3% of papers in this hub.
  • ALFWorld is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
  • long-horizon tasks appears in 100% of papers, indicating agentic evaluation demand.
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 domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (ALFWorld vs BrowseComp) before comparing methods.

Metric Interpretation

  • cost is reported in 100% of hub papers (12/12); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 41.7% of hub papers (5/12); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Benchmark Context

  • ALFWorld appears in 8.3% of hub papers (1/12); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • BrowseComp appears in 8.3% of hub papers (1/12); 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
SWE-Protégé: Learning to Selectively Collaborate With an Expert Unlocks Small Language Models as Software Engineering Agents

Feb 25, 2026

Pass@1, Latency SWE Bench, SWE Bench Verified Automatic Metrics Not reported
Search More, Think Less: Rethinking Long-Horizon Agentic Search for Efficiency and Generalization

Feb 26, 2026

Accuracy, Latency GAIA, BrowseComp 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
Test-Time Scaling with Diffusion Language Models via Reward-Guided Stitching

Feb 26, 2026

Accuracy, Latency Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Continuous Telemonitoring of Heart Failure using Personalised Speech Dynamics

Feb 23, 2026

Accuracy, Cost Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
REDSearcher: A Scalable and Cost-Efficient Framework for Long-Horizon Search Agents

Feb 15, 2026

Recall, Cost Not reported 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
How Do Latent Reasoning Methods Perform Under Weak and Strong Supervision?

Feb 25, 2026

Accuracy, Cost Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Do LLMs and VLMs Share Neurons for Inference? Evidence and Mechanisms of Cross-Modal Transfer

Feb 22, 2026

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

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

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% 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 (8.3% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is strong (41.7% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Agentic evaluation appears in 100% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.3% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • 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 (8.3% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Top Metrics

  • Cost (12)
  • Accuracy (5)
  • Latency (4)
  • Inference cost (2)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (10)
  • Simulation Env (2)

Top Benchmarks

  • ALFWorld (1)
  • BrowseComp (1)
  • GAIA (1)
  • SWE Bench (1)

Agentic Mix

  • Long Horizon (12)
  • 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.