Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2025-06-05

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 12 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 12 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequently cited benchmark: Cross-Arena. Common metric signal: relevance. Use this page to compare protocol setup, judge behavior, and labeling design decisions before running new eval experiments. Newest paper in this set is from Jun 5, 2025.

Papers: 12 Last published: Jun 5, 2025 Global RSS

Researcher Quick Triage

Use this archive page for time-slice monitoring (what changed in evaluation methods, metrics, and protocol quality this period). Quality band: Medium .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

12 / 12 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

8.3%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

41.7%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 0 papers report explicit quality controls for this archive period.
  • Prioritize papers with both benchmark and metric anchors for reliable longitudinal comparisons.

Primary action: Use this slice as early signal only; benchmark/metric anchoring is limited for rigorous period-over-period claims.

Get this digest every Friday →

Subscribe

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 16.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 33.3% of papers in this hub.
  • Cross-Arena is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly multi-dimensional rubrics; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (Cross-Arena vs LMSYS Chatbot Arena) before comparing methods.

Start Here (Highest-Signal Papers In This Slice)

Ranked by protocol completeness and evidence density for faster period-over-period review.

Protocol Matrix (Top 10)

Quickly compare method ingredients across this archive slice.

Paper Eval Modes Benchmarks Metrics Quality Controls
Evaluating Vision-Language and Large Language Models for Automated Student Assessment in Indonesian Classrooms

Jun 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Relevance Not reported
Search Arena: Analyzing Search-Augmented LLMs

Jun 5, 2025

Not reported LMSYS Chatbot Arena, Cross Arena Not reported Not reported
Resisting Contextual Interference in RAG via Parametric-Knowledge Reinforcement

Jun 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Enhancing Delta Compression in LLMs via SVD-based Quantization Error Minimization

Jun 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Precision Not reported
LESS: Large Language Model Enhanced Semi-Supervised Learning for Speech Foundational Models Using in-the-wild Data

Jun 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Bleu, Error rate Not reported
Improving Data Efficiency for LLM Reinforcement Fine-tuning Through Difficulty-targeted Online Data Selection and Rollout Replay

Jun 5, 2025

Not reported Not reported Cost Not reported
EHR2Path: Scalable Modeling of Longitudinal Patient Pathways from Multimodal Electronic Health Records

Jun 5, 2025

Simulation Env Not reported Not reported Not reported
MMTU: A Massive Multi-Task Table Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark

Jun 5, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Sensory-Motor Control with Large Language Models via Iterative Policy Refinement

Jun 5, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
FictionalQA: A Dataset for Studying Memorization and Knowledge Acquisition

Jun 5, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • This hub still surfaces a concentrated paper set for protocol triage and replication planning.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16.7% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (16.7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (Cross-Arena vs LMSYS Chatbot Arena) before comparing methods.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16.7% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (4)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Relevance (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Cross Arena (1)
  • LMSYS Chatbot Arena (1)
  • Search Arena (1)

Quality Controls

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.