Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Perplexity Metric Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 16 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: GSM8K. Common metric signal: perplexity. Newest paper in this set is from Feb 20, 2026.

Papers: 16 Last published: Feb 20, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page covers 16 papers centered on Perplexity Metric Papers. Common evaluation modes include Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env, with benchmark emphasis on GSM8K, Retrieval. Use the anchored takeaways below to compare protocol choices and identify papers with stronger evidence depth.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

Protocol Takeaways

Benchmark Interpretation

  • GSM8K appears as a recurring benchmark anchor in this page.
  • 2 papers (12.5%) mention GSM8K.
  • Most common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env.

Metric Interpretation

  • perplexity is a common reported metric and should be paired with protocol context before ranking methods.
  • 16 papers (100%) mention perplexity.
  • Most common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env.

Researcher Checklist

  • Papers with explicit human feedback: Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 45% target).
  • Papers reporting quality controls: Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 30% target).
  • Papers naming benchmarks/datasets: Coverage is usable but incomplete (31.3% 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 (0% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (31.3% 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 (0% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. SPQ: An Ensemble Technique for Large Language Model Compression

    Start with this anchor paper for scope and protocol framing. Covers Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env.

  2. 2. Sign Lock-In: Randomly Initialized Weight Signs Persist and Bottleneck Sub-Bit Model Compression

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  3. 3. Training Models on Dialects of Translationese Shows How Lexical Diversity and Source-Target Syntactic Similarity Shape Learning

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  4. 4. *-PLUIE: Personalisable metric with Llm Used for Improved Evaluation

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  5. 5. Fine-Refine: Iterative Fine-grained Refinement for Mitigating Dialogue Hallucination

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  6. 6. Scaling Beyond Masked Diffusion Language Models

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  7. 7. Fast-weight Product Key Memory

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  8. 8. Reconstructing KV Caches with Cross-layer Fusion For Enhanced Transformers

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

Known Limitations

  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper method details may be missing.
  • Extraction fields are conservative and can under-report implicit protocol details.
  • Cross-page comparisons should control for benchmark and metric mismatch.

Research Utility Links

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=1, left_only=14, right_only=1

1 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs