Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Planning does not by itself imply the ability to recognise errors, but recognising errors can improve planning capacity."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Shi Feng, Qimin Zhong, Siwei Wang, Yifei Shen +3 more
Published
Oct 18, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
0/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
15% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
Oct 18, 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.
All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.
Best use
Background context only
Use if you need
Background context only.
What to verify
Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.
Main weakness
This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.
If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here
Planning does not by itself imply the ability to recognise errors, but recognising errors can improve planning capacity. In this paper, we study this phenomenon in Transformer planning. To analyze the inner mechanism, we follow the approach of Wang et al. (2024) and abstract planning as path-finding in graphs. In this setting, we train the model to detect the error of invalid transitions, i.e., after the model generates a next node that is not adjacent with the current node, the model should then generate a special abort token x. For expressiveness, we construct a Transformer with feed-forward width $O(|V|)$ for any fixed graph with node set $V$. It can detect all possible invalid transitions, and select a valid next node if the prefix is valid. We then propose a worst-case lower bound on feed-forward width, which makes the detector's linear width near-optimal up to logarithmic factors. In trained models, we demonstrate that invalid-transition detection increases previous-node attention, and most of the valid--invalid separation locates in the feed-forward network's output. This accords with our theoretical insights. Finally, we use this error detection to improve the model's performance: at inference, generating the abort token x will directly cause an external procedure to discard the attempt and restart from the original prompt. Experiments show that error detection combined with retry improves model's planning reliability on graphs, Countdown, and mazes.
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.
"Planning does not by itself imply the ability to recognise errors, but recognising errors can improve planning capacity."
None explicit
Validate eval design from full paper text.
"Planning does not by itself imply the ability to recognise errors, but recognising errors can improve planning capacity."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Planning does not by itself imply the ability to recognise errors, but recognising errors can improve planning capacity."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Planning does not by itself imply the ability to recognise errors, but recognising errors can improve planning capacity."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"Planning does not by itself imply the ability to recognise errors, but recognising errors can improve planning capacity."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
Planning does not by itself imply the ability to recognise errors, but recognising errors can improve planning capacity.
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
No clear evaluation mode extracted.
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
No metric terms extracted.