Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-03-07

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 23 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 23 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Scalar. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Common metric signal: cost. 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 7, 2026.

Papers: 23 Last published: Mar 7, 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%

23 / 23 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

4.3%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

39.1%

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

  • 21.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 39.1% of papers in this hub.
  • long-horizon tasks appears in 4.3% of papers, indicating agentic evaluation demand.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (4.3% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly scalar scoring; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.

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
Taiwan Safety Benchmark and Breeze Guard: Toward Trustworthy AI for Taiwanese Mandarin

Mar 7, 2026

Automatic Metrics Ts Bench F1 Not reported
To Predict or Not to Predict? Towards reliable uncertainty estimation in the presence of noise

Mar 7, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported F1, F1 macro Calibration
Can Safety Emerge from Weak Supervision? A Systematic Analysis of Small Language Models

Mar 7, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Helpfulness Not reported
SoK: Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): Taxonomy, Architectures, Evaluation, and Research Directions

Mar 7, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Not reported
Lying to Win: Assessing LLM Deception through Human-AI Games and Parallel-World Probing

Mar 7, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Entropy-Aware On-Policy Distillation of Language Models

Mar 7, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Precision Not reported
CoTJudger: A Graph-Driven Framework for Automatic Evaluation of Chain-of-Thought Efficiency and Redundancy in LRMs

Mar 7, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Cost Not reported
Language-Aware Distillation for Multilingual Instruction-Following Speech LLMs with ASR-Only Supervision

Mar 7, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Jailbreak success rate Not reported
A Systematic Investigation of Document Chunking Strategies and Embedding Sensitivity

Mar 7, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Precision Not reported
AutoChecklist: Composable Pipelines for Checklist Generation and Scoring with LLM-as-a-Judge

Mar 7, 2026

Llm As Judge Not reported Not reported Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (21.7% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (4.3% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (17.4% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (17.4% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 4.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (17.4% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (17.4% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both cost and helpfulness.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 4.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (17.4% 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 (9)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Metrics

  • Cost (1)
  • Helpfulness (1)

Top Benchmarks

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.