Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-04-06

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 147 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 147 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequent quality control: Inter Annotator Agreement Reported. Frequently cited benchmark: BFCL. 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 Apr 6, 2026.

Papers: 147 Last published: Apr 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 .

Analysis blocks are computed from the loaded sample (60 of 147 papers).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

16.7%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

26.7%

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.

Get this digest every Friday →

Subscribe

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 3.4% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 13.6% of papers in this hub.
  • BFCL is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is inter-annotator agreement reporting (1.4% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.

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
MinerU2.5-Pro: Pushing the Limits of Data-Centric Document Parsing at Scale

Apr 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics Omnidocbench Accuracy Adjudication
MemMachine: A Ground-Truth-Preserving Memory System for Personalized AI Agents

Apr 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics HotpotQA Accuracy, Recall Not reported
Full-Duplex-Bench-v3: Benchmarking Tool Use for Full-Duplex Voice Agents Under Real-World Disfluency

Apr 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics Full Duplex Bench Accuracy, Pass@1 Not reported
SkillX: Automatically Constructing Skill Knowledge Bases for Agents

Apr 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics BFCL Task success Not reported
Your Agent, Their Asset: A Real-World Safety Analysis of OpenClaw

Apr 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics Cik Bench Success rate, Jailbreak success rate Not reported
TriAttention: Efficient Long Reasoning with Trigonometric KV Compression

Apr 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Throughput Not reported
QED-Nano: Teaching a Tiny Model to Prove Hard Theorems

Apr 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost, Inference cost Not reported
Strengthening Human-Centric Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Integrity in LLMs via a Structured Prompt Framework

Apr 6, 2026

Human Eval, Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Agreement Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
Do No Harm: Exposing Hidden Vulnerabilities of LLMs via Persona-based Client Simulation Attack in Psychological Counseling

Apr 6, 2026

Simulation Env Not reported Perplexity Not reported
Early Stopping for Large Reasoning Models via Confidence Dynamics

Apr 6, 2026

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (3.4% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (2% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (2.7% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (26.5% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (2.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.1% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (2.7% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (6.1% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Stratify by benchmark (BFCL vs full-duplex-bench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (2.7% 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 (20)
  • Simulation Env (3)
  • Human Eval (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (18)
  • Cost (11)
  • Recall (5)
  • Perplexity (4)

Top Benchmarks

  • BFCL (1)
  • Full Duplex Bench (1)
  • HotpotQA (1)
  • MS CXR Tretrieval (1)

Quality Controls

  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (2)
  • Adjudication (1)
  • Gold Questions (1)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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