Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Metric Hub

Throughput In CS.CL Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Jun 30, 2026). 56 papers are grouped in this metric page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Jun 30, 2026). 56 papers are grouped in this metric page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Frequently cited benchmark: LiveCodeBench. Common metric signal: throughput. 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 Apr 3, 2026.

Papers: 56 Last published: Apr 3, 2026 Global RSS

When This Metric Page Is Useful

Useful for background comparison, but still validate benchmark and protocol details in the linked papers. Quality band: Medium .

Metric Coverage

16.1%

9 sampled papers include metric names.

Benchmark Anchoring

5.4%

Papers with explicit dataset/benchmark anchors for fair comparison.

Quality Controls

0.0%

0 papers report calibration/adjudication/IAA controls.

  • 56 papers are not low-signal flagged in this sample.
  • Use the protocol matrix below to avoid comparing metrics across incompatible eval setups.

Recommended next step: Treat this as directional signal only; metric reporting is present but benchmark anchoring is still thin.

Main limitation: Benchmark coverage is still thin, so avoid treating this page as a definitive guide to the metric.

What This Metric Page Tells You

What This Metric Page Tells You

  • 5.4% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 14.3% of papers in this hub.
  • LiveCodeBench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Metric Notes (Expanded)

Metric-Driven Protocol Takeaways

  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly mixed annotation units; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.

Metric Interpretation

  • throughput is reported in 100% of hub papers (56/56); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • accuracy is reported in 41.1% of hub papers (23/56); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Benchmark Context

  • LiveCodeBench appears in 3.6% of hub papers (2/56); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • LongBench appears in 3.6% of hub papers (2/56); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Start Here (Metric-Reliable First 6)

Ranked for metric reporting completeness and comparability.

Metric Protocol Matrix (Top 10)

Compare metric, benchmark, and evaluation context side by side.

Paper Metrics Benchmarks Eval Modes Quality Controls
Dustin: Draft-Augmented Sparse Verification for Efficient Long-Context Generation with Speculative Decoding

Jun 23, 2026

 Accuracy, Latency LongBench Automatic Metrics Not reported
GLiGuard: Schema-Conditioned Classification for LLM Safeguard

May 8, 2026

 Accuracy, F1 Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Weakly Supervised Distillation of Hallucination Signals into Transformer Representations

Apr 7, 2026

 F1, Latency SQuAD Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics Not reported
TriAttention: Efficient Long Reasoning with Trigonometric KV Compression

Apr 6, 2026

 Accuracy, Throughput Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Towards Efficient Agents: A Co-Design of Inference Architecture and System

Dec 20, 2025

 Accuracy, Latency BrowseComp Automatic Metrics Not reported
JoyAI-LLM Flash: Advancing Mid-Scale LLMs with Token Efficiency

Apr 3, 2026

 Throughput Not reported Not reported Not reported
Luna-2: Scalable Single-Token Evaluation with Small Language Models

Feb 20, 2026

 Accuracy, Latency Not reported Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics Not reported
Learning When to Attend: Conditional Memory Access for Long-Context LLMs

Mar 18, 2026

 Throughput, Context length Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
Anatomy of Agentic Memory: Taxonomy and Empirical Analysis of Evaluation and System Limitations

Feb 22, 2026

 Accuracy, Latency Not reported Automatic Metrics Not reported
EntMTP: Accelerating LLM Inference with Entropy Guided Multi Token Prediction

Jun 25, 2026

 Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
How To Use This Page

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.4% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

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

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (30.4% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (1.8% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

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

Strengths

  • This hub still surfaces a concentrated paper set for protocol triage and replication planning.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (1.8% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (0% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Stratify by benchmark (LiveCodeBench vs LongBench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both throughput and accuracy.

Recommended Queries

LLM-as-Judge ProtocolsBenchmark Slice: LiveCodeBenchMetric Slice: throughputRecent High-Signal Papers
Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (1.8% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Coverage Snapshot

Top Metrics

  • Throughput (56)
  • Accuracy (23)
  • Cost (19)
  • Latency (15)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (8)
  • Llm As Judge (2)

Top Benchmarks

  • LiveCodeBench (2)
  • LongBench (2)
  • MMMU (2)
  • AIME (1)

Agentic Mix

  • Long Horizon (4)

Top Papers Reporting This Metric

Related Metrics And Hubs

Throughput Metric Papers CS.CL Human Feedback And Eval Papers Throughput In CS.LG Papers CS.CL Papers (Last 90 Days) HFEPX Quarterly Archive: 2026-Q2 Throughput + Automatic Metrics Metric Papers Coherence + General Metric Papers (16) Helpfulness In CS.CL Papers (17) Helpfulness Metric Papers (20) Relevance + Automatic Metrics Metric Papers (22) Relevance + General Metric Papers (12) Relevance In CS.CL Papers (68) Relevance In CS.LG Papers (21) Relevance Metric Papers (96) Throughput In CS.LG Papers (26) Inference Cost In CS.AI Papers (18)