Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-02-25

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 92 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 92 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: Inter Annotator Agreement Reported. Frequently cited benchmark: MMLU. 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 25, 2026.

Papers: 92 Last published: Feb 25, 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 92 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

45.0%

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 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

  • 12% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 44.6% of papers in this hub.
  • MMLU is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is inter-annotator agreement reporting (2.2% 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
Improving Parametric Knowledge Access in Reasoning Language Models

Feb 25, 2026

Automatic Metrics SimpleQA, NQ Recall Not reported
SWE-Protégé: Learning to Selectively Collaborate With an Expert Unlocks Small Language Models as Software Engineering Agents

Feb 25, 2026

Automatic Metrics SWE Bench, SWE Bench Verified Pass@1, Latency Not reported
Confidence-Driven Multi-Scale Model Selection for Cost-Efficient Inference

Feb 25, 2026

Automatic Metrics MMLU Accuracy, Cost Not reported
Understanding Artificial Theory of Mind: Perturbed Tasks and Reasoning in Large Language Models

Feb 25, 2026

Automatic Metrics DROP Accuracy, Faithfulness Not reported
D-COT: Disciplined Chain-of-Thought Learning for Efficient Reasoning in Small Language Models

Feb 25, 2026

Automatic Metrics MMLU, MMLU Pro Accuracy Not reported
A Fusion of context-aware based BanglaBERT and Two-Layer Stacked LSTM Framework for Multi-Label Cyberbullying Detection

Feb 25, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, F1 Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
MEDSYN: Benchmarking Multi-EviDence SYNthesis in Complex Clinical Cases for Multimodal Large Language Models

Feb 25, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
DynamicGTR: Leveraging Graph Topology Representation Preferences to Boost VLM Capabilities on Graph QAs

Feb 25, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
SurGo-R1: Benchmarking and Modeling Contextual Reasoning for Operative Zone in Surgical Video

Feb 25, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Importance of Prompt Optimisation for Error Detection in Medical Notes Using Language Models

Feb 25, 2026

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (12% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (3.3% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.6% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (10.9% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (10.9% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 3.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (10.9% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (10.9% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

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

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 3.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (10.9% 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 (41)
  • Simulation Env (6)
  • Human Eval (2)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (11)
  • Cost (3)
  • Success rate (3)
  • Pass@1 (2)

Top Benchmarks

  • MMLU (2)
  • SWE Bench (2)
  • SWE Bench Verified (2)
  • Arlarena (1)

Quality Controls

  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (2)
  • Calibration (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.