Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-03-05

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 90 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 90 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: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: FlexTravelBench. 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 5, 2026.

Papers: 90 Last published: Mar 5, 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 90 papers).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

5.0%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

13.3%

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

  • 8.9% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 14.4% of papers in this hub.
  • FlexTravelBench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (2.2% 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
Reasoning Theater: Disentangling Model Beliefs from Chain-of-Thought

Mar 5, 2026

Automatic Metrics MMLU, GPQA Accuracy, Recall Not reported
ThaiSafetyBench: Assessing Language Model Safety in Thai Cultural Contexts

Mar 5, 2026

Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics Thaisafetybench F1, F1 weighted Not reported
VRM: Teaching Reward Models to Understand Authentic Human Preferences

Mar 5, 2026

Human Eval Not reported Coherence Not reported
When Weak LLMs Speak with Confidence, Preference Alignment Gets Stronger

Mar 5, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Not reported
Functionality-Oriented LLM Merging on the Fisher--Rao Manifold

Mar 5, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Replaying pre-training data improves fine-tuning

Mar 5, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
POET-X: Memory-efficient LLM Training by Scaling Orthogonal Transformation

Mar 5, 2026

Not reported Not reported Throughput, Cost Not reported
MPCEval: A Benchmark for Multi-Party Conversation Generation

Mar 5, 2026

Not reported Mpceval Not reported Not reported
VisionPangu: A Compact and Fine-Grained Multimodal Assistant with 1.7B Parameters

Mar 5, 2026

Not reported Not reported Coherence Not reported
RoboPocket: Improve Robot Policies Instantly with Your Phone

Mar 5, 2026

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.9% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (2.2% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (30% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.8% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 2.2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (5.6% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (7.8% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (FlexTravelBench vs if-rewardbench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and f1.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 2.2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (5.6% 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 (13)
  • Llm As Judge (2)
  • Simulation Env (2)
  • Human Eval (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (8)
  • F1 (6)
  • Relevance (5)
  • Cost (4)

Top Benchmarks

  • FlexTravelBench (1)
  • If Rewardbench (1)
  • Interactivebench (1)
  • SURVIVALBENCH (1)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (2)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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