Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"LLM-guided search explores multiple candidate trajectories, but at substantial test-time cost."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Tianhao Qian, Jiayu Chen, Zhenyu Sun, Lixu Wang
Published
Apr 15, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Moderate
Usefulness score
25/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
55% (Moderate)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Sep 29, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.
Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.
What to verify
Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.
Main weakness
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
LLM-guided search explores multiple candidate trajectories, but at substantial test-time cost. Pruning low-scoring frontier candidates can control this cost, yet it also turns potentially biased evaluator scores into irreversible decisions: systematic ranking errors can persist under repeated scoring and remove useful branches. We propose Probably Approximately Correct Conformal Filtering (PAC-CF). Its fixed-frontier analysis formulates elimination as an $(\varepsilon,δ)$-PAC problem under bounded evaluator bias; its operational rule separately calibrates a score-gap threshold on held-out tasks by running the original controller without PAC-CF and using post-search verifier labels to measure the deficit of solution-preserving candidates relative to the frontier leader. Conditional on exchangeable native-controller tasks with nonempty protected exposure, conformal calibration gives finite-sample coverage for retaining at least one verifier-defined valid continuation at every protected frontier on the native trajectory. At deployment, PAC-CF removes only candidates whose gap from the highest frontier score exceeds the frozen threshold. We evaluate PAC-CF across three domains, five controllers, and four request budgets from B100 to B500. In the cross-domain/controller macro averages, the point estimates for all three workload measures are lower at every budget; the paired-bootstrap 95\% confidence interval for utility excludes zero at B100 and B200. For pruning-aware ToolTree, the full-test-set cross-domain utility difference is $+4.38$ points at each tested budget; on the natural-termination sensitivity cohort, physical requests decrease by $18.94$--$18.95\%$ and end-to-end token usage by $23.57$--$23.76\%$.
These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.
None explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"LLM-guided search explores multiple candidate trajectories, but at substantial test-time cost."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"LLM-guided search explores multiple candidate trajectories, but at substantial test-time cost."
Calibration
Calibration/adjudication style controls detected.
"Conditional on exchangeable native-controller tasks with nonempty protected exposure, conformal calibration gives finite-sample coverage for retaining at least one verifier-defined valid continuation at every protected frontier on the native trajectory."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"LLM-guided search explores multiple candidate trajectories, but at substantial test-time cost."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"LLM-guided search explores multiple candidate trajectories, but at substantial test-time cost."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
LLM-guided search explores multiple candidate trajectories, but at substantial test-time cost.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
No explicit human feedback protocol detected.
Evaluation mode is explicit
Detected: Automatic Metrics
Quality control reporting appears
Detected: Calibration
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
No metric terms extracted.