Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-03-02

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 77 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 77 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. 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 2, 2026.

Papers: 77 Last published: Mar 2, 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 77 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

35.0%

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.

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 11.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 23.4% of papers in this hub.
  • AIME 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 (1.3% 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
Beyond the Resumé: A Rubric-Aware Automatic Interview System for Information Elicitation

Mar 2, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Calibration
According to Me: Long-Term Personalized Referential Memory QA

Mar 2, 2026

Automatic Metrics Atm Bench Accuracy, Recall Not reported
CyclicJudge: Mitigating Judge Bias Efficiently in LLM-based Evaluation

Mar 2, 2026

Llm As Judge MT Bench Cost Not reported
LLM-as-an-Annotator: Training Lightweight Models with LLM-Annotated Examples for Aspect Sentiment Tuple Prediction

Mar 2, 2026

Automatic Metrics Semeval F1 Not reported
Building a Strong Instruction Language Model for a Less-Resourced Language

Mar 2, 2026

Automatic Metrics LMSYS Chatbot Arena, Slovenian Llm Eval Win rate Not reported
From Variance to Invariance: Qualitative Content Analysis for Narrative Graph Annotation

Mar 2, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Agreement Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
Surgical Post-Training: Cutting Errors, Keeping Knowledge

Mar 2, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
GenDB: The Next Generation of Query Processing -- Synthesized, Not Engineered

Mar 2, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Not reported
MMR-Life: Piecing Together Real-life Scenes for Multimodal Multi-image Reasoning

Mar 2, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
PonderLM-3: Adaptive Token-Wise Pondering with Differentiable Masking

Mar 2, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Perplexity, Cost Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.7% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (2.6% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.2% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (19.5% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (15.6% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 2.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.7% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (15.6% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

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

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 2.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.7% 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 (18)
  • Llm As Judge (3)
  • Human Eval (1)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (5)
  • Latency (4)
  • Cost (3)
  • Jailbreak success rate (3)

Top Benchmarks

  • AIME (1)
  • BBH (1)
  • Healthbench (1)
  • LongBench (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.