Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2025-10-10

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 5 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: Retrieval. Common metric signal: accuracy. Newest paper in this set is from Oct 10, 2025.

Papers: 5 Last published: Oct 10, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page covers 5 papers centered on HFEPX Daily Archive: 2025-10-10. Common evaluation modes include Automatic Metrics, with benchmark emphasis on Retrieval. Use the anchored takeaways below to compare protocol choices and identify papers with stronger evidence depth.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

Protocol Takeaways

Benchmark Interpretation

  • Retrieval appears as a recurring benchmark anchor in this page.
  • 1 papers (20%) mention Retrieval.
  • Most common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is a common reported metric and should be paired with protocol context before ranking methods.
  • 1 papers (20%) mention accuracy.
  • Most common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics.

Researcher Checklist

  • Papers with explicit human feedback: Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 45% target).
  • Papers reporting quality controls: Coverage is usable but incomplete (20% vs 30% target).
  • Papers naming benchmarks/datasets: Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 35% target).
  • Papers naming evaluation metrics: Coverage is strong (40% vs 35% target).
  • Papers with known rater population: Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).
  • Papers with known annotation unit: Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is usable but incomplete (20% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (40% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. The Speech-LLM Takes It All: A Truly Fully End-to-End Spoken Dialogue State Tracking Approach

    Start with this anchor paper for scope and protocol framing. Covers Automatic Metrics.

  2. 2. Chlorophyll-a Mapping and Prediction in the Mar Menor Lagoon Using C2RCC-Processed Sentinel 2 Imagery

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  3. 3. Verifying Chain-of-Thought Reasoning via Its Computational Graph

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  4. 4. Multimodal Prompt Optimization: Why Not Leverage Multiple Modalities for MLLMs

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  5. 5. FinAuditing: A Financial Taxonomy-Structured Multi-Document Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

Known Limitations

  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper method details may be missing.
  • Extraction fields are conservative and can under-report implicit protocol details.
  • Daily and rolling archives can be sparse and should be cross-checked with neighboring windows.

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives