Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2025-F16

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 15 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 15 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequently cited benchmark: Livemcpbench. Common metric signal: coherence. 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 Aug 10, 2025.

Papers: 15 Last published: Aug 10, 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%

15 / 15 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

26.7%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

40.0%

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.

Why This Slice Matters (Expanded)

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 6.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by red-team protocols.
  • automatic metrics appears in 33.3% of papers in this hub.
  • Livemcpbench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

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 unspecified rater pools, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.

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
Not All Errors Are Created Equal: ASCoT Addresses Late-Stage Fragility in Efficient LLM Reasoning

Aug 7, 2025

Automatic Metrics MATH 500, GSM8K Accuracy Not reported
Share Your Attention: Transformer Weight Sharing via Matrix-based Dictionary Learning

Aug 6, 2025

Automatic Metrics DROP Accuracy, Perplexity Not reported
CoAct-1: Computer-using Multi-Agent System with Coding Actions

Aug 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics OSWorld Success rate Not reported
LiveMCPBench: Can Agents Navigate an Ocean of MCP Tools?

Aug 3, 2025

Llm As Judge Livemcpbench Task success Not reported
LayerT2V: A Unified Multi-Layer Video Generation Framework

Aug 6, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Coherence Not reported
Hidden Dynamics of Massive Activations in Transformer Training

Aug 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
PoeTone: A Framework for Constrained Generation of Structured Chinese Songci with LLMs

Aug 4, 2025

Human Eval Not reported Not reported Not reported
Role-Aware Language Models for Secure and Contextualized Access Control in Organizations

Jul 31, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Position: Beyond Sensitive Attributes, ML Fairness Should Quantify Structural Injustice via Social Determinants

Aug 10, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
SQL-Exchange: Transforming SQL Queries Across Domains

Aug 9, 2025

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.7% 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 (13.3% 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 (0% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.7% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (6.7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (Livemcpbench vs OSWorld) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both coherence and success rate.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population 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 (5)
  • Human Eval (1)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Metrics

  • Coherence (1)
  • Success rate (1)
  • Task success (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Livemcpbench (1)
  • OSWorld (1)

Quality Controls

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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