Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-02-26

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 60 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: Retrieval. 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 26, 2026.

Papers: 60 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 60 papers for HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-02-26. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, Auditbench and metric focus on accuracy, latency. Use the grounded sections below to prioritize reproducible protocol choices, benchmark-matched comparisons, and judge-vs-human evaluation checks.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

Protocol Takeaways

Benchmark Interpretation

  • Retrieval appears in 13.3% of hub papers (8/60); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Auditbench appears in 1.7% of hub papers (1/60); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 25% of hub papers (15/60); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • latency is reported in 11.7% of hub papers (7/60); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (1.7% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.7% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (50% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (6.7% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

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

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.7% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (50% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (6.7% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Scale Can't Overcome Pragmatics: The Impact of Reporting Bias on Vision-Language Reasoning

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  2. 2. LLM Novice Uplift on Dual-Use, In Silico Biology Tasks

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  3. 3. A Mixture-of-Experts Model for Multimodal Emotion Recognition in Conversations

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  4. 4. SPARTA: Scalable and Principled Benchmark of Tree-Structured Multi-hop QA over Text and Tables

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Discourse-Aware Dual-Track Streaming Response for Low-Latency Spoken Dialogue Systems

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. AgentDropoutV2: Optimizing Information Flow in Multi-Agent Systems via Test-Time Rectify-or-Reject Pruning

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Why Diffusion Language Models Struggle with Truly Parallel (Non-Autoregressive) Decoding?

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. InnerQ: Hardware-aware Tuning-free Quantization of KV Cache for Large Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 1.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.3% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=56

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=56, right_only=3

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs human_eval

both=0, left_only=3, right_only=1

0 papers use both Simulation Env and Human Eval.

Benchmark Brief

Auditbench

Coverage: 1 papers (1.7%)

1 papers (1.7%) mention Auditbench.

Examples: AuditBench: Evaluating Alignment Auditing Techniques on Models with Hidden Behaviors

Benchmark Brief

BrowseComp

Coverage: 1 papers (1.7%)

1 papers (1.7%) mention BrowseComp.

Examples: Search More, Think Less: Rethinking Long-Horizon Agentic Search for Efficiency and Generalization

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives