Human Feedback Types
missingNone explicit
No explicit feedback protocol extracted.
"Language model agents reason from scratch on every query, discarding their chain of thought after each run."
HFEPX · Eval paper review
Matthew Penaroza
Published
Apr 8, 2026
Citations
0
Trust level
Low
Usefulness score
5/100 (Low)
Extraction confidence
45% (Low)
Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.
Rater population
Not reported
Signals refreshed
May 6, 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 benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.
What to verify
Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.
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
Language model agents reason from scratch on every query, discarding their chain of thought after each run. The result is lower accuracy and high run-to-run variance. We introduce reasoning graphs, which persist the per-evidence chain of thought as structured edges. Unlike prior memory that retrieves distilled strategies by query similarity, reasoning graphs enable evidence-centric feedback: for every candidate item, the system traverses all incoming evaluation edges across prior runs to surface how that specific item has been judged before. We further introduce retrieval graphs, which feed a planner that prunes consistently-rejected candidates over successive runs. Together they form a ROZA graph: a self-improving feedback loop in which accuracy gains scale with gold-passage reuse (reasoning graph) and efficiency gains scale with candidate-pool overlap (retrieval graph). The base model remains frozen; all gains come from context engineering via graph traversal. We evaluate on MuSiQue and HotpotQA, plus a high-reuse deployment subset. Four findings stand out. (1) Dose-response: accuracy improves monotonically with evidence-profile coverage, reaching +10.6pp over Vanilla RAG at 50%+ coverage on the same questions (47% error reduction, $p<0.0001$; per-question Spearman $ρ=+0.144$, $p<10^{-6}$, $n=1{,}100$). (2) Multi-hop scaling: 4-hop accuracy improves by +11.0pp ($p=0.0001$). (3) Cross-cluster prediction: the cluster-level gain is predicted by gold-passage reuse density ($r=0.604$, $p=0.001$, $n=26$ clusters). (4) High-reuse Pareto dominance: highest or tied-for-highest accuracy alongside 46% lower cost and 46% lower latency. Per-passage decision consistency across repeated runs ($N=73$ paired probes, $K=10$ runs each, two model families, three temperatures) rises by +8 to +13pp on a fixed 20-passage context and by +12 to +21pp when the retrieval graph also prunes (all $p<0.005$).
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.
"Language model agents reason from scratch on every query, discarding their chain of thought after each run."
Automatic Metrics
Includes extracted eval setup.
"Language model agents reason from scratch on every query, discarding their chain of thought after each run."
Not reported
No explicit QC controls found.
"Language model agents reason from scratch on every query, discarding their chain of thought after each run."
HotpotQA
Useful for quick benchmark comparison.
"We evaluate on MuSiQue and HotpotQA, plus a high-reuse deployment subset."
Accuracy, Spearman
Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.
"The result is lower accuracy and high run-to-run variance."
Language model agents reason from scratch on every query, discarding their chain of thought after each run.
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
Detected: HotpotQA
Metric reporting is present
Detected: accuracy, spearman