Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2025-F04

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 9 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 9 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Freeform. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: AlpacaEval 2.0. 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 22, 2025.

Papers: 9 Last published: Feb 22, 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: Medium .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

9 / 9 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

33.3%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

33.3%

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.

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 33.3% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 33.3% of papers in this hub.
  • AlpacaEval 2.0 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 (11.1% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly Freeform; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

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
Moving Beyond Medical Exams: A Clinician-Annotated Fairness Dataset of Real-World Tasks and Ambiguity in Mental Healthcare

Feb 22, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Hallucination, Monofacts, and Miscalibration: An Empirical Investigation

Feb 11, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Calibration
Less is More: Improving LLM Alignment via Preference Data Selection

Feb 20, 2025

Not reported AlpacaEval 2.0 Not reported Not reported
Glycemic-Aware and Architecture-Agnostic Training Framework for Blood Glucose Forecasting in Type 1 Diabetes

Feb 20, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, F1 Not reported
MathFimer: Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning by Expanding Reasoning Steps through Fill-in-the-Middle Task

Feb 17, 2025

Not reported GSM8K Not reported Not reported
Enhancing Multilingual LLM Pretraining with Model-Based Data Selection

Feb 14, 2025

Not reported MMLU Not reported Not reported
SEFL: A Framework for Generating Synthetic Educational Assignment Feedback with LLM Agents

Feb 18, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Using the Path of Least Resistance to Explain Deep Networks

Feb 17, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Sparse Shift Autoencoders for Identifying Concepts from Large Language Model Activations

Feb 14, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Moderate: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (33.3% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (22.2% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 11.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (22.2% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (11.1% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 11.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (22.2% 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 (3)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • AlpacaEval 2.0 (1)

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.