Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Latency + General Metric Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 19 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: BrowseComp. 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: 19 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 19 papers for Latency + General Metric Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on BrowseComp, Retrieval 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

  • BrowseComp appears in 10.5% of hub papers (2/19); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Retrieval appears in 10.5% of hub papers (2/19); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • latency is reported in 100% of hub papers (19/19); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 47.4% of hub papers (9/19); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Abstract Evidence Highlights

Direct snippets from paper abstracts to ground protocol and benchmark interpretation.

Human-eval abstract signal: Achieving human-like responsiveness is a critical yet challenging goal for cascaded spoken dialogue systems.

Human-eval abstract signal: Recent deep research agents primarily improve performance by scaling reasoning depth, but this leads to high inference cost and latency in search-intensive scenarios.

BrowseComp benchmark signal: We train an end-to-end agent using supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, achieving strong and often state of the art performance across benchmarks including BrowseComp (48.6\%), GAIA (75.7\%), Xbench (82.0\%), and DeepResearch Bench (45.9\%).

BrowseComp benchmark signal: Experiments on the BrowseComp-zh and DeepDiver benchmarks demonstrate that through the synergistic collaboration of these methods, AgentInfer reduces ineffective token consumption by over 50%, achieving an overall 1.8-2.5 times speedup with preserved accuracy.

latency metric signal: To support generalization across task types, we further introduce a unified data synthesis pipeline that constructs search tasks spanning both deterministic question answering and open-ended research scenarios with task appropriate evaluation metrics.

rater calibration quality-control signal: Analyses show improved self-correction and uncertainty calibration, making remasking markedly more compute-efficient.

Protocol abstract signal: Large Language Models (LLMs) face significant challenges regarding deployment costs and latency, necessitating adaptive computing strategies.

Protocol abstract signal: Over the last twenty years, significant progress has been made in designing and implementing Question Answering (QA) systems.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (5.3% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (5.3% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (26.3% 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 (0% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (5.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (5.3% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (5.3% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (26.3% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (5.3% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Discourse-Aware Dual-Track Streaming Response for Low-Latency Spoken Dialogue Systems

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

  2. 2. 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.

  3. 3. Ruyi2 Technical Report

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

  4. 4. LiCQA : A Lightweight Complex Question Answering System

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Generative Pseudo-Labeling for Pre-Ranking with LLMs

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. HELP: HyperNode Expansion and Logical Path-Guided Evidence Localization for Accurate and Efficient GraphRAG

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Anatomy of Agentic Memory: Taxonomy and Empirical Analysis of Evaluation and System Limitations

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

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

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 5.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% 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=1, left_only=17, right_only=1

1 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

DocVQA

Coverage: 1 papers (5.3%)

1 papers (5.3%) mention DocVQA.

Examples: Chain-of-Thought Compression Should Not Be Blind: V-Skip for Efficient Multimodal Reasoning via Dual-Path Anchoring

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs