Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2025-F10

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Common metric signal: win rate. 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 May 18, 2025.

Papers: 10 Last published: May 18, 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%

10 / 10 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

20.0%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

40.0%

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 Slice Matters (Expanded)

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 20% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by demonstration data.
  • automatic metrics appears in 30% of papers in this hub.
  • long-horizon tasks appears in 10% of papers, indicating agentic evaluation demand.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (10% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly mixed annotation units; 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
EVALOOOP: A Self-Consistency-Centered Framework for Assessing Large Language Model Robustness in Programming

May 18, 2025

Automatic Metrics MBPP+, DROP Accuracy, Pass@1 Not reported
Mastering Multi-Drone Volleyball through Hierarchical Co-Self-Play Reinforcement Learning

May 7, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Win rate Not reported
BARREL: Boundary-Aware Reasoning for Factual and Reliable LRMs

May 18, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Benchmarking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Chemistry

May 12, 2025

Not reported Chemrag Bench Not reported Not reported
Scalable LLM Reasoning Acceleration with Low-rank Distillation

May 8, 2025

Not reported Not reported Latency Not reported
Multimodal Integrated Knowledge Transfer to Large Language Models through Preference Optimization with Biomedical Applications

May 9, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
ReplaceMe: Network Simplification via Depth Pruning and Transformer Block Linearization

May 5, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Calibration
EAMET: Robust Massive Model Editing via Embedding Alignment Optimization

May 17, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Visual Planning: Let's Think Only with Images

May 16, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
CodePDE: An Inference Framework for LLM-driven PDE Solver Generation

May 13, 2025

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (10% 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 (10% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (30% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

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

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 10% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (0% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).

Suggested Next Analyses

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

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 10% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (0% 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

  • Win rate (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.