Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-03-04

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 54 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 54 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequently cited benchmark: SWE-bench. 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 4, 2026.

Papers: 54 Last published: Mar 4, 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 .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

54 / 54 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

5.6%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

9.3%

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

  • 5.6% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 7.4% of papers in this hub.
  • SWE-bench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Rater context is mostly unspecified rater pools, and annotation is commonly pairwise annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (SWE-bench vs AIME) 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
AILS-NTUA at SemEval-2026 Task 12: Graph-Based Retrieval and Reflective Prompting for Abductive Event Reasoning

Mar 4, 2026

Automatic Metrics Semeval Accuracy Not reported
$V_1$: Unifying Generation and Self-Verification for Parallel Reasoners

Mar 4, 2026

Automatic Metrics SWE Bench, AIME Pass@1 Not reported
AgentIR: Reasoning-Aware Retrieval for Deep Research Agents

Mar 4, 2026

Automatic Metrics BrowseComp Accuracy Not reported
Vibe Code Bench: Evaluating AI Models on End-to-End Web Application Development

Mar 4, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Agreement Not reported
Why Are Linear RNNs More Parallelizable?

Mar 4, 2026

Not reported Not reported Precision Not reported
From Static Inference to Dynamic Interaction: A Survey of Streaming Large Language Models

Mar 4, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Bielik-Q2-Sharp: A Comparative Study of Extreme 2-bit Quantization Methods for a Polish 11B Language Model

Mar 4, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Optimizing Language Models for Crosslingual Knowledge Consistency

Mar 4, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Using Vision + Language Models to Predict Item Difficulty

Mar 4, 2026

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Stan: An LLM-based thermodynamics course assistant

Mar 4, 2026

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (18.5% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (44.4% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

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

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (3.7% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (3.7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (SWE-bench vs AIME) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and agreement.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% 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 (4)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (10)
  • Agreement (3)
  • F1 (3)
  • Pass@1 (3)

Top Benchmarks

  • SWE Bench (2)
  • AIME (1)
  • CodeContests (1)
  • Driftbench (1)

Quality Controls

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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