Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-02-13

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 17 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 17 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: BrowseComp. 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 Feb 13, 2026.

Papers: 17 Last published: Feb 13, 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%

17 / 17 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

5.9%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

47.1%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 2 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

  • 17.6% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 47.1% of papers in this hub.
  • BrowseComp is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (11.8% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (BrowseComp vs LMSYS Chatbot Arena) 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
SCOPE: Selective Conformal Optimized Pairwise LLM Judging

Feb 13, 2026

Automatic Metrics MT Bench, LMSYS Chatbot Arena Error rate Calibration
Learning Ordinal Probabilistic Reward from Preferences

Feb 13, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
PMG: Parameterized Motion Generator for Human-like Locomotion Control

Feb 13, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Calibration Calibration
OpenLID-v3: Improving the Precision of Closely Related Language Identification -- An Experience Report

Feb 13, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Precision Not reported
Towards interpretable models for language proficiency assessment: Predicting the CEFR level of Estonian learner texts

Feb 13, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Buy versus Build an LLM: A Decision Framework for Governments

Feb 13, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Not reported
BrowseComp-$V^3$: A Visual, Vertical, and Verifiable Benchmark for Multimodal Browsing Agents

Feb 13, 2026

Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Unleashing Low-Bit Inference on Ascend NPUs: A Comprehensive Evaluation of HiFloat Formats

Feb 13, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Precision Not reported
MedXIAOHE: A Comprehensive Recipe for Building Medical MLLMs

Feb 13, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Semantic Chunking and the Entropy of Natural Language

Feb 13, 2026

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (17.6% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.8% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (17.6% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.5% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.8% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (29.4% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • This hub still surfaces a concentrated paper set for protocol triage and replication planning.

Known Gaps

  • Only 11.8% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.8% coverage).
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (17.6% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (BrowseComp vs LMSYS Chatbot Arena) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and calibration.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 11.8% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.8% 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 (8)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (2)
  • Calibration (1)
  • Error rate (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • BrowseComp (1)
  • LMSYS Chatbot Arena (1)
  • MT Bench (1)
  • Rewardbench (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (2)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.