Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-02-09

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 5 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequently cited benchmark: APPS. Common metric signal: accuracy. Newest paper in this set is from Feb 9, 2026.

Papers: 5 Last published: Feb 9, 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: 2026-02-09. Common evaluation modes include Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env, with benchmark emphasis on APPS, LongBench. 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

  • APPS appears as a recurring benchmark anchor in this page.
  • 1 papers (20%) mention APPS.
  • Most common evaluation modes: Simulation Env.

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 usable but incomplete (40% 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 (60% vs 35% target).
  • Papers with known rater population: Coverage is strong (40% vs 35% target).
  • Papers with known annotation unit: Coverage is strong (40% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is usable but incomplete (40% 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 (60% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

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

Papers with known annotation unit

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. UI-Venus-1.5 Technical Report

    Start with this anchor paper for scope and protocol framing. Covers Simulation Env.

  2. 2. Prototype-Based Disentanglement for Controllable Dysarthric Speech Synthesis

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  3. 3. Large Language Models and Impossible Language Acquisition: "False Promise" or an Overturn of our Current Perspective towards AI

    Covers Automatic Metrics. Includes human-feedback signal: Critique Edit.

  4. 4. Language Modeling and Understanding Through Paraphrase Generation and Detection

    Covers Automatic Metrics.

  5. 5. Document Reconstruction Unlocks Scalable Long-Context RLVR

    Covers Automatic Metrics. Includes human-feedback signal: Rubric Rating.

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