Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Daily Archive: 2026-06-18

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Jun 30, 2026). 64 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Jun 30, 2026). 64 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: ALFWorld. 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 Jun 18, 2026.

Papers: 64 Last published: Jun 18, 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 64 papers).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

20.0%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

48.3%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 4 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

  • 17.2% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 39.1% of papers in this hub.
  • ALFWorld is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (6.3% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly ranking annotation; 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
Beyond Global Replanning: Hierarchical Recovery for Cross-Device Agent Systems

Jun 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics Herabench Cost, Token cost Not reported
Source-Grounded Data Generation for Text-to-JSON Learning

Jun 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics Stage Eval Accuracy, Exact match Not reported
GEMS: Geometric Constraints Enable Multi-Semantic Superposition in LLMs

Jun 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics GSM8K Accuracy, Perplexity Not reported
CREDENCE: Claim Reduction for Decomposition & Enhanced Credibility -- Semantic Metrics and Convergence Analysis

Jun 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics Wikisplitbench, Claimdecompbench Accuracy, F1 Not reported
Think Again or Think Longer? Selective Verification for Budget-Aware Reasoning

Jun 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics CommonsenseQA Accuracy, Cost Not reported
AgentFinVQA: A Deployable Multi-Agent Pipeline for Auditable Financial Chart QA

Jun 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics ChartQA Accuracy Not reported
NEST: Narrative Event Structures in Time for Long Video Understanding

Jun 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics Needle In A Haystack F1 Not reported
Toward Calibrated Mixture-of-Experts Under Distribution Shift

Jun 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Calibration
Your Mouse and Eyes Secretly Leak Your Preference: LLM Alignment using Implicit Feedback from Users

Jun 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
The Register Gap: A Meaning Intelligence Framework for Nigerian Public Discourse

Jun 18, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Calibration
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (17.2% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.4% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (4.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (20.3% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 6.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (4.7% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (20.3% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Stratify by benchmark (ALFWorld vs ChartQA) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and recall.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 6.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (4.7% 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 (25)
  • Simulation Env (4)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (4)
  • Recall (2)
  • Cost (1)
  • F1 (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • ALFWorld (1)
  • ChartQA (1)
  • IFEval (1)
  • Toolprivbench (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (4)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices