Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Cost In CS.LG Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 30 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: GSM8K. 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 25, 2026.

Papers: 30 Last published: Feb 25, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 30 papers for Cost In CS.LG Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on GSM8K, NyayaBench 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

  • GSM8K appears in 3.3% of hub papers (1/30); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • NyayaBench appears in 3.3% of hub papers (1/30); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • cost is reported in 100% of hub papers (30/30); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 33.3% of hub papers (10/30); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (3.3% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (6.7% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (13.3% 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 (10% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (13.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (3.3% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (6.7% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (13.3% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (13.3% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

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

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

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

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

  3. 3. JSAM: Privacy Straggler-Resilient Joint Client Selection and Incentive Mechanism Design in Differentially Private Federated Learning

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

  4. 4. From Basis to Basis: Gaussian Particle Representation for Interpretable PDE Operators

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Adversarial Intent is a Latent Variable: Stateful Trust Inference for Securing Multimodal Agentic RAG

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Small Language Models for Privacy-Preserving Clinical Information Extraction in Low-Resource Languages

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Why Pass@k Optimization Can Degrade Pass@1: Prompt Interference in LLM Post-training

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Localized Dynamics-Aware Domain Adaption for Off-Dynamics Offline Reinforcement Learning

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 6.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (10% 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=28, right_only=2

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

GSM8K

Coverage: 1 papers (3.3%)

1 papers (3.3%) mention GSM8K.

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

Benchmark Brief

NyayaBench

Coverage: 1 papers (3.3%)

1 papers (3.3%) mention NyayaBench.

Examples: Why Agent Caching Fails and How to Fix It: Structured Intent Canonicalization with Few-Shot Learning

Benchmark Brief

Retrieval

Coverage: 1 papers (3.3%)

1 papers (3.3%) mention Retrieval.

Examples: Adversarial Intent is a Latent Variable: Stateful Trust Inference for Securing Multimodal Agentic RAG

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs