Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-02-17

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 56 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 56 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: Charteditbench. Common metric signal: cost. 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 17, 2026.

Papers: 56 Last published: Feb 17, 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: High .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

56 / 56 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

8.9%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

30.4%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 3 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

  • 16.1% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 30.4% of papers in this hub.
  • Charteditbench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (1.8% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly ranking annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.

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
Recursive Concept Evolution for Compositional Reasoning in Large Language Models

Feb 17, 2026

Automatic Metrics GPQA, HLE Accuracy Not reported
Multi-Objective Alignment of Language Models for Personalized Psychotherapy

Feb 17, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Agreement, Cost Not reported
ChartEditBench: Evaluating Grounded Multi-Turn Chart Editing in Multimodal Language Models

Feb 17, 2026

Automatic Metrics Charteditbench Not reported Not reported
Revisiting Northrop Frye's Four Myths Theory with Large Language Models

Feb 17, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Agreement Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
Orchestration-Free Customer Service Automation: A Privacy-Preserving and Flowchart-Guided Framework

Feb 17, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Not reported
Evidence-Grounded Subspecialty Reasoning: Evaluating a Curated Clinical Intelligence Layer on the 2025 Endocrinology Board-Style Examination

Feb 17, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
MAEB: Massive Audio Embedding Benchmark

Feb 17, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Not reported
Enhancing Building Semantics Preservation in AI Model Training with Large Language Model Encodings

Feb 17, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported F1 Not reported
*-PLUIE: Personalisable metric with Llm Used for Improved Evaluation

Feb 17, 2026

Llm As Judge Not reported Perplexity, Cost Not reported
ViTaB-A: Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models on Visual Table Attribution

Feb 17, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.1% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.4% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (3.6% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (3.6% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.1% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (10.7% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.

Known Gaps

  • Only 5.4% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7.1% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (10.7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (Charteditbench vs Mind2Web) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both cost and agreement.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 5.4% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7.1% 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 (17)
  • Human Eval (2)
  • Llm As Judge (2)
  • Simulation Env (2)

Top Metrics

  • Cost (2)
  • Agreement (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Charteditbench (1)
  • Mind2Web (1)
  • VisualWebArena (1)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)
  • Calibration (1)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (1)

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.