Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Relevance In CS.AI Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 14 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: Retrieval. Common metric signal: relevance. 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 25, 2026.

Papers: 14 Last published: Feb 25, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 14 papers for Relevance In CS.AI Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, MMLU and metric focus on relevance, 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

  • Retrieval appears in 14.3% of hub papers (2/14); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MMLU appears in 7.1% of hub papers (1/14); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • relevance is reported in 100% of hub papers (14/14); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 14.3% of hub papers (2/14); 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 (7.1% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.4% 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 (7.1% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.4% 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 (7.1% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.4% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (7.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.4% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. VeRO: An Evaluation Harness for Agents to Optimize Agents

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

  2. 2. Diagnosing Causal Reasoning in Vision-Language Models via Structured Relevance Graphs

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

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

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

  4. 4. AdapTools: Adaptive Tool-based Indirect Prompt Injection Attacks on Agentic LLMs

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. KNIGHT: Knowledge Graph-Driven Multiple-Choice Question Generation with Adaptive Hardness Calibration

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. ReAttn: Improving Attention-based Re-ranking via Attention Re-weighting

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Explainable AI: Context-Aware Layer-Wise Integrated Gradients for Explaining Transformer Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. The Invisible Hand of AI Libraries Shaping Open Source Projects and Communities

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 7.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7.1% 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=13, right_only=1

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

MMLU

Coverage: 1 papers (7.1%)

1 papers (7.1%) mention MMLU.

Examples: KNIGHT: Knowledge Graph-Driven Multiple-Choice Question Generation with Adaptive Hardness Calibration

Benchmark Brief

Pii-Bench

Coverage: 1 papers (7.1%)

1 papers (7.1%) mention Pii-Bench.

Examples: PII-Bench: Evaluating Query-Aware Privacy Protection Systems

Metric Brief

calibration

Coverage: 1 papers (7.1%)

1 papers (7.1%) mention calibration.

Examples: KNIGHT: Knowledge Graph-Driven Multiple-Choice Question Generation with Adaptive Hardness Calibration

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs