Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-03-06

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 56 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 56 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: Emobench. 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 6, 2026.

Papers: 56 Last published: Mar 6, 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%

56 / 56 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

14.3%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

41.1%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 5 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.

Get this digest every Friday →

Subscribe

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 17.9% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 37.5% of papers in this hub.
  • Emobench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (3.6% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly pairwise 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 Rows to Reasoning: Agentic Retrieval for Multimodal Spreadsheet Understanding and Editing

Mar 6, 2026

Human Eval, Automatic Metrics Frtr Bench Accuracy, Cost Not reported
LIT-RAGBench: Benchmarking Generator Capabilities of Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Mar 6, 2026

Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics Lit Ragbench Accuracy Not reported
ViewFusion: Structured Spatial Thinking Chains for Multi-View Reasoning

Mar 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics Mmsi Bench Accuracy Not reported
Counting on Consensus: Selecting the Right Inter-annotator Agreement Metric for NLP Annotation and Evaluation

Mar 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Agreement Inter Annotator Agreement Reported, Adjudication
Validation of a Small Language Model for DSM-5 Substance Category Classification in Child Welfare Records

Mar 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Precision, Recall Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
PONTE: Personalized Orchestration for Natural Language Trustworthy Explanations

Mar 6, 2026

Human Eval Not reported Agreement, Faithfulness Not reported
From Prompting to Preference Optimization: A Comparative Study of LLM-based Automated Essay Scoring

Mar 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, F1 Not reported
CRIMSON: A Clinically-Grounded LLM-Based Metric for Generative Radiology Report Evaluation

Mar 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Agreement, Relevance Not reported
Evaluating Austrian A-Level German Essays with Large Language Models for Automated Essay Scoring

Mar 6, 2026

Human Eval Not reported Agreement Not reported
Confidence Before Answering: A Paradigm Shift for Efficient LLM Uncertainty Estimation

Mar 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Calibration
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (17.9% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.9% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.4% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.5% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.5% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.5% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 8.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (12.5% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (12.5% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

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

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 8.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (12.5% 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 (21)
  • Llm As Judge (6)
  • Human Eval (4)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (4)
  • Agreement (3)
  • Cost (2)
  • Relevance (2)

Top Benchmarks

  • Emobench (1)
  • Eq Bench (1)
  • Frtr Bench (1)
  • Lit Ragbench (1)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (2)
  • Calibration (2)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (2)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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