Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-02-18

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 58 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 58 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: LiveCodeBench. 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 18, 2026.

Papers: 58 Last published: Feb 18, 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%

58 / 58 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

15.5%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

43.1%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 4 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 for trend comparison: review top papers first, then validate shifts in the protocol matrix.

Get this digest every Friday →

Subscribe

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 10.3% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 36.2% of papers in this hub.
  • LiveCodeBench 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 (5.2% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.

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
Team of Thoughts: Efficient Test-time Scaling of Agentic Systems through Orchestrated Tool Calling

Feb 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics LiveCodeBench Accuracy Calibration
MemoryArena: Benchmarking Agent Memory in Interdependent Multi-Session Agentic Tasks

Feb 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics Memoryarena Recall Not reported
BanglaSummEval: Reference-Free Factual Consistency Evaluation for Bangla Summarization

Feb 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics Banglasummeval Accuracy, Recall Not reported
References Improve LLM Alignment in Non-Verifiable Domains

Feb 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics LMSYS Chatbot Arena, AlpacaEval Accuracy Not reported
IndicEval: A Bilingual Indian Educational Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models

Feb 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics Indiceval Accuracy Not reported
Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Execution

Feb 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics BIG Bench, Zebralogicbench Accuracy, Faithfulness Not reported
Supercharging Agenda Setting Research: The ParlaCAP Dataset of 28 European Parliaments and a Scalable Multilingual LLM-Based Classification

Feb 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Agreement, Cost Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
Discrete Stochastic Localization for Non-autoregressive Generation

Feb 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Latency Calibration
Reinforced Fast Weights with Next-Sequence Prediction

Feb 18, 2026

Not reported LongBench, Needle In A Haystack Context length, Coherence Not reported
Meenz bleibt Meenz, but Large Language Models Do Not Speak Its Dialect

Feb 18, 2026

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (10.3% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.9% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (3.4% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.9% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.2% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.6% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 6.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (5.2% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (8.6% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Stratify by benchmark (LiveCodeBench vs Memoryarena) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 6.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (5.2% 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 (21)
  • Simulation Env (4)
  • Human Eval (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (2)
  • Cost (1)
  • Inference cost (1)
  • Latency (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • LiveCodeBench (1)
  • Memoryarena (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (3)
  • 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.