Human Feedback Types
strongPairwise Preference
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Yueqi Song, Lintang Sutawika, Jiarui Liu, Lindia Tjuatja +7 more
Published
Jul 2, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
High
Usefulness score
65/100 (Medium)
Extraction confidence
80% (High)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Jul 2, 2026
This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.
Use this as a practical starting point for protocol research, then validate against the original paper.
Best use
Secondary protocol comparison source
Use if you need
A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
No major weakness surfaced.
Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure. A single evaluation can cost thousands of dollars and take days to complete. In contrast, non-agentic LLM benchmarks that test individual capabilities (e.g., reasoning, code generation) are fast and cheap to run. In this paper, we investigate whether performance on expensive agentic benchmarks can be accurately predicted by the performance on a small, carefully selected subset of atomic evaluation instances. We introduce PACE, a framework that constructs proxy benchmarks by selecting instances from existing non-agentic evaluations whose aggregate scores most reliably predict model performances on agentic benchmarks. Given a pool of candidate instances spanning atomic capabilities, PACE fits a regression that maps a model's scores on a compact subset of source instances to its score on the target agentic benchmark. The subset itself is curated by combining two complementary instance-selection strategies, target-relevance local selection and globally informative global selection. We apply PACE to the 4 target agentic benchmarks in this paper, which yields PACE-Bench, the concrete proxy benchmark that we evaluate in the paper. Experiments across 14 models, 4 agentic benchmarks, and 19 non-agentic benchmarks show that PACE-Bench predicts agentic scores with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) mean absolute error (MAE) under 4%, Spearman correlation above 0.80, and pairwise model-ranking accuracy around 85%, all at much less than 1% of the full agentic evaluation cost. We further analyze the selected proxy instances, revealing which skills each agentic benchmark uniquely demands. PACE enables practitioners to obtain reliable estimates of agentic performance during model development, selection, and routing, without the overhead of full agent evaluation.
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.
Pairwise Preference
Directly usable for protocol triage.
"Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure."
GAIA, SWE Bench, Pace Bench
Useful for quick benchmark comparison.
"Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure."
Accuracy, Spearman, Mae, Relevance
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"The subset itself is curated by combining two complementary instance-selection strategies, target-relevance local selection and globally informative global selection."
Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure.
Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.
Human feedback protocol is explicit
Detected: Pairwise Preference
Evaluation mode is explicit
Detected: Automatic Metrics
Quality control reporting appears
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
Detected: GAIA, SWE-bench, Pace-Bench
Metric reporting is present
Detected: accuracy, spearman, mae, relevance