Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2025-F19

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 43 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 43 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Scalar. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: AdvBench. 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 Sep 21, 2025.

Papers: 43 Last published: Sep 21, 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%

43 / 43 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

9.3%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

30.2%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 2 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

  • 16.3% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 30.2% of papers in this hub.
  • AdvBench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (2.3% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly scalar scoring; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and f1.

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
ATTS: Asynchronous Test-Time Scaling via Conformal Prediction

Sep 18, 2025

Automatic Metrics AIME Accuracy, Latency Calibration
A Simple and Efficient Jailbreak Method Exploiting LLMs' Helpfulness

Sep 17, 2025

Automatic Metrics AdvBench Helpfulness Not reported
Evolving Language Models without Labels: Majority Drives Selection, Novelty Promotes Variation

Sep 18, 2025

Automatic Metrics MMLU, MMLU Pro Pass@1, Pass@16 Not reported
SimpleQA Verified: A Reliable Factuality Benchmark to Measure Parametric Knowledge

Sep 9, 2025

Automatic Metrics SimpleQA F1 Not reported
Can GRPO Boost Complex Multimodal Table Understanding?

Sep 21, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Reasoning Efficiently Through Adaptive Chain-of-Thought Compression: A Self-Optimizing Framework

Sep 17, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Latency Not reported
See, Think, Act: Teaching Multimodal Agents to Effectively Interact with GUI by Identifying Toggles

Sep 17, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
PeruMedQA: Benchmarking Large Language Models (LLMs) on Peruvian Medical Exams -- Dataset Construction and Evaluation

Sep 15, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
No Answer Needed: Predicting LLM Answer Accuracy from Question-Only Linear Probes

Sep 12, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Evolution and compression in LLMs: On the emergence of human-aligned categorization

Sep 9, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.3% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (4.7% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (2.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (20.9% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.3% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 4.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (9.3% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and f1.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 4.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7% 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 (13)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (5)
  • F1 (2)
  • Agreement (1)
  • Auroc (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • AdvBench (1)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)
  • Calibration (1)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.