Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Metric Hub

Success Rate In CS.CL Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Frequently cited benchmark: APPS. Common metric signal: success rate. 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: 10 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 10 papers for Success Rate In CS.CL Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on APPS, Retrieval and metric focus on success rate, jailbreak success rate. 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

  • APPS appears in 10% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Retrieval appears in 10% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • success rate is reported in 100% of hub papers (10/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • jailbreak success rate is reported in 60% of hub papers (6/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Tighten coverage on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is usable but incomplete (40% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (20% 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 usable but incomplete (40% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (20% 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. Enhancing Persuasive Dialogue Agents by Synthesizing Cross-Disciplinary Communication Strategies

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

  2. 2. Adversarial Intent is a Latent Variable: Stateful Trust Inference for Securing Multimodal Agentic RAG

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

  3. 3. Uncovering Context Reliance in Unstructured Knowledge Editing

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

  4. 4. MANATEE: Inference-Time Lightweight Diffusion Based Safety Defense for LLMs

    Adds automatic metrics with red-team protocols for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Learning to Stay Safe: Adaptive Regularization Against Safety Degradation during Fine-Tuning

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. What Matters For Safety Alignment?

    Adds automatic metrics with red-team protocols for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Reasoning Up the Instruction Ladder for Controllable Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics with red-team protocols for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. The Tool Decathlon: Benchmarking Language Agents for Diverse, Realistic, and Long-Horizon Task Execution

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% 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=0, left_only=9, right_only=1

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Other Metric Hubs