Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2025-F13

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, Llm As Judge. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Common metric signal: agreement. 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 26, 2025.

Papers: 10 Last published: Jun 26, 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

60.0%

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

  • 30% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by expert verification.
  • automatic metrics appears in 60% of papers in this hub.
  • multi-agent setups appears in 10% of papers, indicating agentic evaluation demand.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (10% 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
An Agentic System for Rare Disease Diagnosis with Traceable Reasoning

Jun 25, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Recall, Agreement Adjudication
PersonalAI: A Systematic Comparison of Knowledge Graph Storage and Retrieval Approaches for Personalized LLM agents

Jun 20, 2025

Automatic Metrics HotpotQA, TriviaQA Accuracy Not reported
DistillNote: Toward a Functional Evaluation Framework of LLM-Generated Clinical Note Summaries

Jun 20, 2025

Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics Not reported Auroc Not reported
Complexity-aware fine-tuning

Jun 26, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Cost Not reported
A Scoping Review of Synthetic Data Generation by Language Models in Biomedical Research and Application: Data Utility and Quality Perspectives

Jun 19, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Relevance Not reported
DeVisE: Behavioral Testing of Medical Large Language Models

Jun 18, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Perplexity Not reported
Revela: Dense Retriever Learning via Language Modeling

Jun 19, 2025

Not reported BEIR Not reported Not reported
Programming by Backprop: An Instruction is Worth 100 Examples When Finetuning LLMs

Jun 23, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
$π$-CoT: Prolog-Initialized Chain-of-Thought Prompting for Multi-Hop Question-Answering

Jun 25, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Parallel Continuous Chain-of-Thought with Jacobi Iteration

Jun 23, 2025

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

Checklist

  • Moderate: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (30% 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 (20% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (10% 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.
  • Rater population is under-specified (20% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (10% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both agreement and auroc.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 10% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (20% 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 (6)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Metrics

  • Agreement (1)
  • Auroc (1)
  • Recall (1)
  • Recall@1 (1)

Top Benchmarks

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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