Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2025-10-13

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

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 9 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Simulation Env, Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequently cited benchmark: APPS. Common metric signal: coherence. 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 13, 2025.

Papers: 9 Last published: Oct 13, 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%

9 / 9 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

11.1%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

33.3%

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

  • simulation environments appears in 33.3% of papers in this hub.
  • APPS is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
  • long-horizon tasks appears in 11.1% of papers, indicating agentic evaluation demand.

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 trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (APPS vs OSWorld) 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
R-WoM: Retrieval-augmented World Model For Computer-use Agents

Oct 13, 2025

Simulation Env WebArena, OSWorld Not reported Not reported
StoryBox: Collaborative Multi-Agent Simulation for Hybrid Bottom-Up Long-Form Story Generation Using Large Language Models

Oct 13, 2025

Simulation Env Not reported Coherence Not reported
DropVLA: An Action-Level Backdoor Attack on Vision--Language--Action Models

Oct 13, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Success rate, Jailbreak success rate Not reported
ShishuLM : Achieving Optimal and Efficient Parameterization with Low Attention Transformer Models

Oct 13, 2025

Not reported Not reported Latency, Throughput Not reported
SAGE: A Top-Down Bottom-Up Knowledge-Grounded User Simulator for Multi-turn AGent Evaluation

Oct 13, 2025

Simulation Env Not reported Not reported Not reported
Qubit-centric Transformer for Surface Code Decoding

Oct 13, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Unlocking the Potential of Diffusion Language Models through Template Infilling

Oct 13, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
CNSocialDepress: A Chinese Social Media Dataset for Depression Risk Detection and Structured Analysis

Oct 13, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
From Prompts to Packets: A View from the Network on ChatGPT, Copilot, and Gemini

Oct 13, 2025

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

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

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

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

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (22.2% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% 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 (11.1% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (11.1% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (APPS vs OSWorld) before comparing methods.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.1% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Evaluation Modes

  • Simulation Env (3)
  • Automatic Metrics (1)

Top Metrics

  • Coherence (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • APPS (1)
  • OSWorld (1)
  • WebArena (1)

Quality Controls

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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