Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-02-21

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 23 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 23 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: AIME. Common metric signal: jailbreak success rate. 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 21, 2026.

Papers: 23 Last published: Feb 21, 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%

23 / 23 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

17.4%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

47.8%

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

  • 13% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 34.8% of papers in this hub.
  • AIME is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (4.3% 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
Yor-Sarc: A gold-standard dataset for sarcasm detection in a low-resource African language

Feb 21, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Agreement Inter Annotator Agreement Reported, Adjudication
Why Agent Caching Fails and How to Fix It: Structured Intent Canonicalization with Few-Shot Learning

Feb 21, 2026

Automatic Metrics Nyayabench Accuracy, Precision Not reported
ArabicNumBench: Evaluating Arabic Number Reading in Large Language Models

Feb 21, 2026

Automatic Metrics Arabicnumbench Accuracy Not reported
Think$^{2}$: Grounded Metacognitive Reasoning in Large Language Models

Feb 21, 2026

Human Eval GSM8K, AIME Not reported Not reported
MANATEE: Inference-Time Lightweight Diffusion Based Safety Defense for LLMs

Feb 21, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Success rate, Jailbreak success rate Not reported
Whisper: Courtside Edition Enhancing ASR Performance Through LLM-Driven Context Generation

Feb 21, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Error rate, Wer Not reported
MoBiQuant: Mixture-of-Bits Quantization for Token-Adaptive Elastic LLMs

Feb 21, 2026

Not reported Not reported Precision Calibration
BURMESE-SAN: Burmese NLP Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models

Feb 21, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Toxicity Not reported
ReHear: Iterative Pseudo-Label Refinement for Semi-Supervised Speech Recognition via Audio Large Language Models

Feb 21, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Jailbreak success rate Not reported
AAVGen: Precision Engineering of Adeno-associated Viral Capsids for Renal Selective Targeting

Feb 21, 2026

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (13% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.7% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (4.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (13% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (17.4% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 8.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.7% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (17.4% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Stratify by benchmark (AIME vs Correctbench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both jailbreak success rate and agreement.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 8.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.7% 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)
  • Human Eval (1)

Top Metrics

  • Jailbreak success rate (2)
  • Agreement (1)
  • Error rate (1)
  • Success rate (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • AIME (1)
  • Correctbench (1)
  • Cruxeval (1)
  • GSM8K (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.