Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2025-10-17

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 5, 2026). 12 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 5, 2026). 12 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequently cited benchmark: Mind2Web. 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 17, 2025.

Papers: 12 Last published: Oct 17, 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

16.7%

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

  • 16.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by demonstration data.
  • automatic metrics appears in 41.7% of papers in this hub.
  • Mind2Web 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 (Mind2Web vs Scholareval) 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
When to Ensemble: Identifying Token-Level Points for Stable and Fast LLM Ensembling

Oct 17, 2025

Automatic Metrics MATH 500, BBH Accuracy Not reported
ScholarEval: Research Idea Evaluation Grounded in Literature

Oct 17, 2025

Not reported Scholareval Not reported Not reported
BIOGEN: Evidence-Grounded Multi-Agent Reasoning Framework for Transcriptomic Interpretation in Antimicrobial Resistance

Oct 17, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Bertscore, Hallucination rate Not reported
HypoSpace: Evaluating LLM Creativity as Set-Valued Hypothesis Generators under Underdetermination

Oct 17, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Precision Not reported
MNO: Multiscale Neural Operator for 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics

Oct 17, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Learning to Answer from Correct Demonstrations

Oct 17, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Not reported Not reported
In Generative AI We (Dis)Trust? Computational Analysis of Trust and Distrust in Reddit Discussions

Oct 17, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
SentinelNet: Safeguarding Multi-Agent Collaboration Through Credit-Based Dynamic Threat Detection

Oct 17, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
PolySkill: Learning Generalizable Skills Through Polymorphic Abstraction

Oct 17, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Language Models are Injective and Hence Invertible

Oct 17, 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 (16.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

  • Moderate: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% 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.
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (8.3% coverage).
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (16.7% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (Mind2Web vs Scholareval) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and bertscore.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (8.3% 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 (5)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (1)
  • Bertscore (1)
  • Hallucination rate (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Mind2Web (1)
  • Scholareval (1)

Quality Controls

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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