Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-02-05

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 5 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Frequently cited benchmark: AIME. Common metric signal: cost. Newest paper in this set is from Feb 5, 2026.

Papers: 5 Last published: Feb 5, 2026 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: 2026-02-05. Common evaluation modes include Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env, with benchmark emphasis on AIME, Airbench. 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

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

Metric Interpretation

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

Researcher Checklist

  • Papers with explicit human feedback: Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 45% target).
  • Papers reporting quality controls: Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).
  • Papers naming benchmarks/datasets: Coverage is strong (40% 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 a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (40% 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. Protean Compiler: An Agile Framework to Drive Fine-grain Phase Ordering

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

  2. 2. Transport and Merge: Cross-Architecture Merging for Large Language Models

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  3. 3. Bagpiper: Solving Open-Ended Audio Tasks via Rich Captions

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  4. 4. The Single-Multi Evolution Loop for Self-Improving Model Collaboration Systems

    Covers Simulation Env.

  5. 5. EBPO: Empirical Bayes Shrinkage for Stabilizing Group-Relative Policy Optimization

    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.

Research Utility Links

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=4, right_only=1

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives