Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Peiwen Li, Harshit Verma, Sophia Zhou, Haiwen Wang +5 more
Published
Nov 12, 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
Nov 12, 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
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
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
Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known. Selecting memory for unknown next tasks requires balancing future usefulness against the costs of writing and reading it. The actor must also decide when acting on available memory saves effort as the task unfolds. We introduce Coding-Repository Memory (CoReMem), a cost-internalizing framework that guides memory design and actor adaptation through measured memory value on the next task. Prospective segment valuation compares runs of the next task with and without individual trajectory segments from the same inherited repository state, guiding a compact memory built around anchors: repository locations and executable checks. Actor adaptation estimates on-policy memory value within rollout groups with and without memory, using a reward that prioritizes resolution and penalizes step count in successful runs. Provenance-gated value credit assigns the additional value term to steps identified as using memory-supplied anchors, while every step retains outcome credit. On ChainSWE, CoReMem raises the 27B actor's resolve rate from 21.0% to 25.7%, with 17% fewer steps and 11% fewer total cache-aware tokens, including memory-module calls, relative to the untrained actor model without memory.
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.
"Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known."
None explicit
Validate eval design from full paper text.
"Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known."
Not extracted
No benchmark anchors detected.
"Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known."
Not extracted
No metric anchors detected.
"Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known."
No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.
No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.
Coding agents tackle successive tasks on an evolving repository, carrying forward edits and writing memory before the next task is known.
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.