Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-03-01

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 13 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 13 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: AIME. 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 Mar 1, 2026.

Papers: 13 Last published: Mar 1, 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: Medium .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

13 / 13 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

7.7%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

23.1%

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 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

  • automatic metrics appears in 23.1% of papers in this hub.
  • AIME is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
  • accuracy is a repeated reporting metric here, enabling more consistent cross-paper score interpretation.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (7.7% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly mixed annotation units; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (AIME vs BioProBench) before comparing methods.

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
KVSlimmer: Theoretical Insights and Practical Optimizations for Asymmetric KV Merging

Mar 1, 2026

Automatic Metrics LongBench Latency Not reported
Conformal Prediction for Risk-Controlled Medical Entity Extraction Across Clinical Domains

Mar 1, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, F1 Calibration
Learn Hard Problems During RL with Reference Guided Fine-tuning

Mar 1, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
VoxKnesset: A Large-Scale Longitudinal Hebrew Speech Dataset for Aging Speaker Modeling

Mar 1, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
A Study on Building Efficient Zero-Shot Relation Extraction Models

Mar 1, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Prompt Sensitivity and Answer Consistency of Small Open-Source Large Language Models on Clinical Question Answering: Implications for Low-Resource Healthcare Deployment

Mar 1, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Curvature-Weighted Capacity Allocation: A Minimum Description Length Framework for Layer-Adaptive Large Language Model Optimization

Mar 1, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
CHIMERA: Compact Synthetic Data for Generalizable LLM Reasoning

Mar 1, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Knowledge without Wisdom: Measuring Misalignment between LLMs and Intended Impact

Mar 1, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
BioProAgent: Neuro-Symbolic Grounding for Constrained Scientific Planning

Mar 1, 2026

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.7% vs 30% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.1% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.1% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 7.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7.7% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (0% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (AIME vs BioProBench) before comparing methods.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 7.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7.7% 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 (3)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (3)

Top Benchmarks

  • AIME (1)
  • BioProBench (1)
  • GPQA (1)
  • HLE (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (1)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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