Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Cost In CS.CL Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 81 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: Retrieval. 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 Feb 26, 2026.

Papers: 81 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 81 papers for Cost In CS.CL Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, MMLU and metric focus on cost, 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 12.3% of hub papers (10/81); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MMLU appears in 3.7% of hub papers (3/81); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • cost is reported in 100% of hub papers (81/81); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 29.6% of hub papers (24/81); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (7.4% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.2% 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 (9.9% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (7.4% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (27.2% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (9.9% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Test-Time Scaling with Diffusion Language Models via Reward-Guided Stitching

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

  2. 2. Replacing Multi-Step Assembly of Data Preparation Pipelines with One-Step LLM Pipeline Generation for Table QA

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

  3. 3. Reinforcing Real-world Service Agents: Balancing Utility and Cost in Task-oriented Dialogue

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

  4. 4. Search More, Think Less: Rethinking Long-Horizon Agentic Search for Efficiency and Generalization

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Deepfake Word Detection by Next-token Prediction using Fine-tuned Whisper

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. How Do Latent Reasoning Methods Perform Under Weak and Strong Supervision?

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. When AI Writes, Whose Voice Remains? Quantifying Cultural Marker Erasure Across World English Varieties in Large Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. SWE-Protégé: Learning to Selectively Collaborate With an Expert Unlocks Small Language Models as Software Engineering Agents

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 7.4% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9.9% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=2, right_only=73

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=2, left_only=71, right_only=6

2 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs human_eval

both=0, left_only=8, right_only=2

0 papers use both Simulation Env and Human Eval.

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs