Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-02-24

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 121 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 121 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: ALFWorld. 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 24, 2026.

Papers: 121 Last published: Feb 24, 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 121 papers).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

10.0%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

33.3%

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

  • 9.1% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 38% of papers in this hub.
  • ALFWorld 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 (0.8% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level 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
Black-Box Reliability Certification for AI Agents via Self-Consistency Sampling and Conformal Calibration

Feb 24, 2026

Automatic Metrics MMLU, GSM8K Accuracy Calibration
Overconfident Errors Need Stronger Correction: Asymmetric Confidence Penalties for Reinforcement Learning

Feb 24, 2026

Automatic Metrics MATH 500, AIME Accuracy, Pass@k Not reported
SparkMe: Adaptive Semi-Structured Interviewing for Qualitative Insight Discovery

Feb 24, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Not reported
An Expert Schema for Evaluating Large Language Model Errors in Scholarly Question-Answering Systems

Feb 24, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Precision Not reported
Adversarial Intent is a Latent Variable: Stateful Trust Inference for Securing Multimodal Agentic RAG

Feb 24, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Success rate, Cost Not reported
Causal Decoding for Hallucination-Resistant Multimodal Large Language Models

Feb 24, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Faithfulness Not reported
The Headless Firm: How AI Reshapes Enterprise Boundaries

Feb 24, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Throughput, Cost Not reported
Small Language Models for Privacy-Preserving Clinical Information Extraction in Low-Resource Languages

Feb 24, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported F1, F1 macro Not reported
Towards Controllable Video Synthesis of Routine and Rare OR Events

Feb 24, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Recall Not reported
Towards single-shot coherent imaging via overlap-free ptychography

Feb 24, 2026

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (1.7% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (0.8% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.4% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 1.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9.1% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (12.4% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

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

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 1.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9.1% 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 (46)
  • Simulation Env (7)
  • Human Eval (3)
  • Llm As Judge (3)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (5)
  • Cost (4)
  • Coherence (2)
  • Agreement (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • ALFWorld (1)
  • WebShop (1)

Quality Controls

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

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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