Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Perplexity + Automatic Metrics Metric Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 17 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. 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: 17 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 17 papers for Perplexity + Automatic Metrics Metric Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on GSM8K, Retrieval and metric focus on perplexity, 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

  • GSM8K appears in 11.8% of hub papers (2/17); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Retrieval appears in 11.8% of hub papers (2/17); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • perplexity is reported in 100% of hub papers (17/17); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 29.4% of hub papers (5/17); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (5.9% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (29.4% 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 (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 (5.9% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (29.4% 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. NoRA: Breaking the Linear Ceiling of Low-Rank Adaptation via Manifold Expansion

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

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

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

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

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Scaling Beyond Masked Diffusion Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Fast-weight Product Key Memory

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 5.9% 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=16, right_only=0

1 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

GSM8K

Coverage: 2 papers (11.8%)

2 papers (11.8%) mention GSM8K.

Examples: SPQ: An Ensemble Technique for Large Language Model Compression , Scaling Beyond Masked Diffusion Language Models

Benchmark Brief

Retrieval

Coverage: 2 papers (11.8%)

2 papers (11.8%) mention Retrieval.

Examples: Fast-weight Product Key Memory , Bayesian Attention Mechanism: A Probabilistic Framework for Positional Encoding and Context Length Extrapolation

Benchmark Brief

DROP

Coverage: 1 papers (5.9%)

1 papers (5.9%) mention DROP.

Examples: Share Your Attention: Transformer Weight Sharing via Matrix-based Dictionary Learning

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs