Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2025-10-10

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 16 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 16 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: HotpotQA. Common metric signal: accuracy. 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 Oct 10, 2025.

Papers: 16 Last published: Oct 10, 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%

16 / 16 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

6.3%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

25.0%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 1 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

  • 25% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by demonstration data.
  • automatic metrics appears in 25% of papers in this hub.
  • HotpotQA is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (6.3% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly ranking annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

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
GraphMERT: Efficient and Scalable Distillation of Reliable Knowledge Graphs from Unstructured Data

Oct 10, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
DSPO: Stable and Efficient Policy Optimization for Agentic Search and Reasoning

Oct 10, 2025

Simulation Env HotpotQA Not reported Not reported
The Speech-LLM Takes It All: A Truly Fully End-to-End Spoken Dialogue State Tracking Approach

Oct 10, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
MaP: A Unified Framework for Reliable Evaluation of Pre-training Dynamics

Oct 10, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Pass@k Not reported
Do LLMs Really Know What They Don't Know? Internal States Mainly Reflect Knowledge Recall Rather Than Truthfulness

Oct 10, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Recall Not reported
Mapping Semantic & Syntactic Relationships with Geometric Rotation

Oct 10, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Chlorophyll-a Mapping and Prediction in the Mar Menor Lagoon Using C2RCC-Processed Sentinel 2 Imagery

Oct 10, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Calibration
Detecting Data Contamination from Reinforcement Learning Post-training for Large Language Models

Oct 10, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Verifying Chain-of-Thought Reasoning via Its Computational Graph

Oct 10, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Multimodal Prompt Optimization: Why Not Leverage Multiple Modalities for MLLMs

Oct 10, 2025

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (25% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 6.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.3% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (6.3% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 6.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.3% 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

  • Accuracy (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • HotpotQA (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (1)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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