Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Inference Cost In CS.CL Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Scalar. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: BrowseComp. 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: 10 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 10 papers for Inference Cost In CS.CL Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, with frequent benchmark focus on BrowseComp, GAIA and metric focus on cost, inference cost. 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

  • BrowseComp appears in 10% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • GAIA appears in 10% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

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

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 45% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is usable but incomplete (20% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (20% 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 (20% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is usable but incomplete (20% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

Suggested Reading Order

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

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

  2. 2. CAMEL: Confidence-Gated Reflection for Reward Modeling

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

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

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

  4. 4. Luna-2: Scalable Single-Token Evaluation with Small Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Sink-Aware Pruning for Diffusion Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. TabAgent: A Framework for Replacing Agentic Generative Components with Tabular-Textual Classifiers

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Inference-Cost-Aware Dynamic Tree Construction for Efficient Inference in Large Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. PonderLM-2: Pretraining LLM with Latent Thoughts in Continuous Space

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Rater population is under-specified (10% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (20% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

Benchmark Brief

BrowseComp

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention BrowseComp.

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

Benchmark Brief

GAIA

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention GAIA.

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

Benchmark Brief

GSM8K

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention GSM8K.

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

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs