Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-02-19

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 61 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 61 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: Bankmathbench. 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 19, 2026.

Papers: 61 Last published: Feb 19, 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 .

Analysis blocks are computed from the loaded sample (60 of 61 papers).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

13.3%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

43.3%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 1 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

  • 11.5% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 36.1% of papers in this hub.
  • Bankmathbench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (1.6% 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
ABCD: All Biases Come Disguised

Feb 19, 2026

Automatic Metrics DROP Accuracy Not reported
RPDR: A Round-trip Prediction-Based Data Augmentation Framework for Long-Tail Question Answering

Feb 19, 2026

Automatic Metrics PopQA Recall Not reported
BankMathBench: A Benchmark for Numerical Reasoning in Banking Scenarios

Feb 19, 2026

Automatic Metrics Bankmathbench Accuracy Not reported
Modeling Distinct Human Interaction in Web Agents

Feb 19, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
What Makes a Good Doctor Response? A Study on Text-Based Telemedicine

Feb 19, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Mind the Style: Impact of Communication Style on Human-Chatbot Interaction

Feb 19, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Task success Not reported
CLEF HIPE-2026: Evaluating Accurate and Efficient Person-Place Relation Extraction from Multilingual Historical Texts

Feb 19, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
What Language is This? Ask Your Tokenizer

Feb 19, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
The Cascade Equivalence Hypothesis: When Do Speech LLMs Behave Like ASR$\rightarrow$LLM Pipelines?

Feb 19, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Jailbreak success rate Not reported
KLong: Training LLM Agent for Extremely Long-horizon Tasks

Feb 19, 2026

Not reported SWE Bench, MLE Bench Not reported Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.5% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (1.6% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (3.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.8% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (13.1% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.8% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 1.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (13.1% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (9.8% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (Bankmathbench vs MLE-Bench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and task success.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 1.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (13.1% 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 (22)
  • Human Eval (1)
  • Llm As Judge (1)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (5)
  • Task success (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Bankmathbench (1)
  • MLE Bench (1)
  • Paperbench (1)
  • SWE Bench (1)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.