Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-02-26

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 154 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 154 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: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: BrowseComp. 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: 154 Last published: Feb 26, 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 154 papers).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

8.3%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

16.7%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 0 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 23.4% of papers in this hub.
  • BrowseComp is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (0.6% 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
RLShield: Practical Multi-Agent RL for Financial Cyber Defense with Attack-Surface MDPs and Real-Time Response Orchestration

Feb 26, 2026

Automatic Metrics APPS Cost Not reported
SPARTA: Scalable and Principled Benchmark of Tree-Structured Multi-hop QA over Text and Tables

Feb 26, 2026

Automatic Metrics DROP F1 Not reported
InnerQ: Hardware-aware Tuning-free Quantization of KV Cache for Large Language Models

Feb 26, 2026

Automatic Metrics GSM8K Accuracy, Precision Not reported
IDP Accelerator: Agentic Document Intelligence from Extraction to Compliance Validation

Feb 26, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Latency Not reported
CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era

Feb 26, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Faithfulness Not reported
A Mixture-of-Experts Model for Multimodal Emotion Recognition in Conversations

Feb 26, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported F1, F1 weighted Not reported
Discourse-Aware Dual-Track Streaming Response for Low-Latency Spoken Dialogue Systems

Feb 26, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Latency, Jailbreak success rate Not reported
AgentDropoutV2: Optimizing Information Flow in Multi-Agent Systems via Test-Time Rectify-or-Reject Pruning

Feb 26, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Spatio-Temporal Token Pruning for Efficient High-Resolution GUI Agents

Feb 26, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Precision, Latency Not reported
ReCoN-Ipsundrum: An Inspectable Recurrent Persistence Loop Agent with Affect-Coupled Control and Mechanism-Linked Consciousness Indicator Assays

Feb 26, 2026

Not reported DROP Not reported 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 (1.9% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.4% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.4% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.1% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 1.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.4% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (7.1% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Stratify by benchmark (BrowseComp vs GAIA) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 1.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.4% 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 (36)
  • Simulation Env (7)
  • Human Eval (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (20)
  • Cost (9)
  • Latency (5)
  • Precision (4)

Top Benchmarks

  • BrowseComp (2)
  • GAIA (2)
  • WebShop (2)
  • ALFWorld (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.