Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-01-16

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequently cited benchmark: BFCL. 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 Jan 16, 2026.

Papers: 10 Last published: Jan 16, 2026 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%

10 / 10 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

20.0%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

20.0%

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

  • 10% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by red-team protocols.
  • automatic metrics appears in 10% of papers in this hub.
  • BFCL 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 unspecified rater pools, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (BFCL vs Blenderbench) 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
AJAR: Adaptive Jailbreak Architecture for Red-teaming

Jan 16, 2026

Simulation Env Harmbench Success rate, Jailbreak success rate Not reported
Vision-as-Inverse-Graphics Agent via Interleaved Multimodal Reasoning

Jan 16, 2026

Automatic Metrics Blenderbench, Slidebench Accuracy Not reported
The unreasonable effectiveness of pattern matching

Jan 16, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
F-Actor: Controllable Conversational Behaviour in Full-Duplex Models

Jan 16, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
T$^\star$: Progressive Block Scaling for Masked Diffusion Language Models Through Trajectory Aware Reinforcement Learning

Jan 16, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Generating metamers of human scene understanding

Jan 16, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Contextual Distributionally Robust Optimization with Causal and Continuous Structure: An Interpretable and Tractable Approach

Jan 16, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
A Confidence-Variance Theory for Pseudo-Label Selection in Semi-Supervised Learning

Jan 16, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
The Growing Gains and Pains of Iterative Web Corpora Crawling: Insights from South Slavic CLASSLA-web 2.0 Corpora

Jan 16, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Beyond Max Tokens: Stealthy Resource Amplification via Tool Calling Chains in LLM Agents

Jan 16, 2026

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (10% 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 (30% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (30% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

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

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (10% 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 (0% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (10% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (BFCL vs Blenderbench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% 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 (1)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (1)
  • Cost (1)
  • Jailbreak success rate (1)
  • Success rate (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • BFCL (1)
  • Blenderbench (1)
  • Harmbench (1)
  • Slidebench (1)

Quality Controls

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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