Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Latency + Coding Metric Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 20 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: MATH. Common metric signal: latency. 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: 20 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 20 papers for Latency + Coding Metric Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on MATH, AIME and metric focus on latency, 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

  • MATH appears in 10% of hub papers (2/20); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • AIME appears in 5% of hub papers (1/20); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • latency is reported in 100% of hub papers (20/20); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 35% of hub papers (7/20); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (15% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (5% vs 30% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is strong (50% 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 (5% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (15% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (5% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (50% 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 (5% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Why Diffusion Language Models Struggle with Truly Parallel (Non-Autoregressive) Decoding?

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

  2. 2. InnerQ: Hardware-aware Tuning-free Quantization of KV Cache for Large Language Models

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

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

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

  4. 4. Vectorizing the Trie: Efficient Constrained Decoding for LLM-based Generative Retrieval on Accelerators

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. 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.

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

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. HiSAC: Hierarchical Sparse Activation Compression for Ultra-long Sequence Modeling in Recommenders

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. CHESS: Context-aware Hierarchical Efficient Semantic Selection for Long-Context LLM Inference

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 5% 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=18, right_only=2

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

AIME

Coverage: 1 papers (5%)

1 papers (5%) mention AIME.

Examples: ATTS: Asynchronous Test-Time Scaling via Conformal Prediction

Benchmark Brief

BrowseComp

Coverage: 1 papers (5%)

1 papers (5%) mention BrowseComp.

Examples: Step 3.5 Flash: Open Frontier-Level Intelligence with 11B Active Parameters

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs