Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Metric Hub

Inference Cost Metric Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Jun 30, 2026). 50 papers are grouped in this metric page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Jun 30, 2026). 50 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: 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 Mar 31, 2026.

Papers: 50 Last published: Mar 31, 2026 Global RSS

When This Metric Page Is Useful

Useful for shortlisting papers and comparing how this metric is used across different eval setups. Quality band: High .

Metric Coverage

30.0%

15 sampled papers include metric names.

Benchmark Anchoring

10.0%

Papers with explicit dataset/benchmark anchors for fair comparison.

Quality Controls

0.0%

0 papers report calibration/adjudication/IAA controls.

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

Recommended next step: Use the top metric-reliable papers first, then compare benchmark context in the matrix before drawing conclusions.

Main limitation: Benchmark coverage is good enough for side-by-side comparison, but you should still verify definitions in the source papers.

What This Metric Page Tells You

What This Metric Page Tells You

  • 12% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by critique/edit feedback.
  • automatic metrics appears in 26% of papers in this hub.
  • GSM8K 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 domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; 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 (50/50); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • inference cost is reported in 100% of hub papers (50/50); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Benchmark Context

  • GSM8K appears in 8% of hub papers (4/50); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • AIME appears in 2% of hub papers (1/50); 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
S0 Tuning: Zero-Overhead Adaptation of Hybrid Recurrent-Attention Models

Apr 1, 2026

 Pass@1, Cost MATH 500, GSM8K Automatic Metrics Not reported
Learning When to Sample: Confidence-Aware Self-Consistency for Efficient LLM Chain-of-Thought Reasoning

Mar 9, 2026

 Accuracy, Cost MMLU Automatic Metrics Not reported
GLiGuard: Schema-Conditioned Classification for LLM Safeguard

May 8, 2026

 Accuracy, F1 Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
$\texttt{YC-Bench}$: Benchmarking AI Agents for Long-Term Planning and Consistent Execution

Apr 1, 2026

 Cost, Inference cost Yc Bench 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
Aligning Multimodal Sequential Recommendations via Robust Direct Preference Optimization with Sparse MoE

Mar 31, 2026

 Ndcg, Cost Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Dynamic Mixed-Precision Routing for Efficient Multi-step LLM Interaction

Feb 2, 2026

 Accuracy, Precision ALFWorld, WebShop Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env Not reported
QED-Nano: Teaching a Tiny Model to Prove Hard Theorems

Apr 6, 2026

 Cost, Inference cost Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
CAMEL: Confidence-Gated Reflection for Reward Modeling

Feb 24, 2026

 Accuracy, Cost Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Distilling Feedback into Memory-as-a-Tool

Jan 9, 2026

 Cost, Inference cost Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
How To Use This Page

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (12% 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 (28% 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 (4% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (14% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • This hub still surfaces a concentrated paper set for protocol triage and replication planning.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (4% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (14% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Stratify by benchmark (GSM8K vs AIME) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both cost and inference cost.

Recommended Queries

LLM-as-Judge ProtocolsBenchmark Slice: GSM8KMetric Slice: costRecent High-Signal Papers
Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (4% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Coverage Snapshot

Top Metrics

  • Cost (50)
  • Inference cost (50)
  • Accuracy (19)
  • Latency (9)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (13)
  • Simulation Env (2)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • GSM8K (4)
  • AIME (1)
  • ALFWorld (1)
  • Arena Hard (1)

Agentic Mix

  • Long Horizon (7)
  • Web Browsing (2)

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Related Metrics And Hubs

Inference Cost In CS.CL Papers Inference Cost In CS.AI Papers Inference Cost In CS.LG Papers CS.CL Human Feedback And Eval Papers Inference Cost + Automatic Metrics Metric Papers Inference Cost + General Metric Papers Coherence + General Metric Papers (16) Helpfulness In CS.CL Papers (17) Helpfulness Metric Papers (20) Relevance + Automatic Metrics Metric Papers (22) Relevance + General Metric Papers (12) Relevance In CS.CL Papers (68) Relevance In CS.LG Papers (21) Relevance Metric Papers (96) Throughput In CS.LG Papers (26) Inference Cost In CS.AI Papers (18)