Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2025-F03

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 31 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 31 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. Frequently cited benchmark: LMSYS Chatbot Arena. 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 Feb 9, 2025.

Papers: 31 Last published: Feb 9, 2025 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%

31 / 31 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

6.5%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

32.3%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 0 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

  • 25.8% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 35.5% of papers in this hub.
  • LMSYS Chatbot Arena is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly pairwise 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
VolleyBots: A Testbed for Multi-Drone Volleyball Game Combining Motion Control and Strategic Play

Feb 4, 2025

Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env Not reported Win rate Not reported
CowPilot: A Framework for Autonomous and Human-Agent Collaborative Web Navigation

Jan 28, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Success rate, Task success Not reported
MoEMba: A Mamba-based Mixture of Experts for High-Density EMG-based Hand Gesture Recognition

Feb 9, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Unbiased Sliced Wasserstein Kernels for High-Quality Audio Captioning

Feb 8, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
vCache: Verified Semantic Prompt Caching

Feb 6, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Error rate, Latency Not reported
Evaluation of Large Language Models via Coupled Token Generation

Feb 3, 2025

Not reported LMSYS Chatbot Arena Not reported Not reported
FastKV: Decoupling of Context Reduction and KV Cache Compression for Prefill-Decoding Acceleration

Feb 3, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Latency Not reported
Evaluating Spoken Language as a Biomarker for Automated Screening of Cognitive Impairment

Jan 30, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Not reported
Dialogue is Better Than Monologue: Instructing Medical LLMs via Strategical Conversations

Jan 29, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Representing data in words: A context engineering approach

Jan 27, 2025

Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (25.8% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (3.2% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (19.4% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.5% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.7% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.5% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (9.7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.5% 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 (11)
  • Llm As Judge (2)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (2)
  • Cost (1)
  • Latency (1)
  • Success rate (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • LMSYS Chatbot Arena (1)

Quality Controls

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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