HFEPX · Eval paper review
Chongyang Gao, Diji Yang, Shuyan Zhou, Xichen Yan +3 more
Published
Feb 23, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
25/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
45% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Feb 23, 2026
This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.
Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.
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
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
Main weakness
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
We introduce \CFE{} (\textbf{C}lassroom \textbf{F}inal \textbf{E}xam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains. \CFE{} is curated from repeatedly used, authentic university homework and exam problems, together with reference solutions provided by course instructors. \CFE{} presents a significant challenge even for frontier models: the newly released Gemini-3.1-pro-preview achieves an overall accuracy of 59.69\%, while the second-best model, Gemini-3-flash-preview, reaches 55.46\%, leaving considerable room for improvement. Beyond leaderboard results, we perform a diagnostic analysis by decomposing reference solutions into reasoning flows. We find that although frontier models can often answer intermediate sub-questions correctly, they struggle to reliably derive and maintain correct intermediate states throughout multi-step solutions. We further observe that model-generated solutions typically have more reasoning steps than those provided by the instructor, indicating suboptimal step efficiency and a higher risk of error accumulation. The data and code are available at https://github.com/Analogy-AI/CFE_Bench.
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.
"We introduce \CFE{} (\textbf{C}lassroom \textbf{F}inal \textbf{E}xam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"We introduce \CFE{} (\textbf{C}lassroom \textbf{F}inal \textbf{E}xam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"We introduce \CFE{} (\textbf{C}lassroom \textbf{F}inal \textbf{E}xam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"We introduce \CFE{} (\textbf{C}lassroom \textbf{F}inal \textbf{E}xam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains."
Accuracy
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"\CFE{} presents a significant challenge even for frontier models: the newly released Gemini-3.1-pro-preview achieves an overall accuracy of 59.69\%, while the second-best model, Gemini-3-flash-preview, reaches 55.46\%, leaving considerable room for improvement."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
We introduce \CFE{} (\textbf{C}lassroom \textbf{F}inal \textbf{E}xam), a multimodal benchmark for evaluating the reasoning capabilities of large language models across more than 20 STEM domains.
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
No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.
Benchmark or dataset anchors are present
No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.
Metric reporting is present
Detected: accuracy
