Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2025-F20

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 34 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: Retrieval. 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 Oct 5, 2025.

Papers: 34 Last published: Oct 5, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 34 papers for HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2025-F20. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, LLM-as-judge, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, Featbench and metric focus on accuracy, cost. Use the grounded sections below to prioritize reproducible protocol choices, benchmark-matched comparisons, and judge-vs-human evaluation checks.

Why This Matters For Eval Research

Protocol Takeaways

Benchmark Interpretation

  • Retrieval appears in 8.8% of hub papers (3/34); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Featbench appears in 2.9% of hub papers (1/34); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 20.6% of hub papers (7/34); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 14.7% of hub papers (5/34); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (14.7% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (8.8% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (14.7% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (47.1% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (5.9% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (20.6% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (14.7% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (8.8% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (14.7% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (47.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (5.9% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (20.6% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. PoLi-RL: A Point-to-List Reinforcement Learning Framework for Conditional Semantic Textual Similarity

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  2. 2. Finding Diamonds in Conversation Haystacks: A Benchmark for Conversational Data Retrieval

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  3. 3. BioX-Bridge: Model Bridging for Unsupervised Cross-Modal Knowledge Transfer across Biosignals

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting, including rater and quality-control evidence.

  4. 4. Can AI Truly Represent Your Voice in Deliberations? A Comprehensive Study of Large-Scale Opinion Aggregation with LLMs

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Hearing the Order: Investigating Position Bias in Large Audio-Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Latent Thinking Optimization: Your Latent Reasoning Language Model Secretly Encodes Reward Signals in Its Latent Thoughts

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. LD-MoLE: Learnable Dynamic Routing for Mixture of LoRA Experts

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Polychromic Objectives for Reinforcement Learning

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 8.8% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (5.9% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=30

0 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=30, right_only=4

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs llm_as_judge

both=1, left_only=3, right_only=0

1 papers use both Simulation Env and Llm As Judge.

Benchmark Brief

Featbench

Coverage: 1 papers (2.9%)

1 papers (2.9%) mention Featbench.

Examples: FeatBench: Towards More Realistic Evaluation of Feature-level Code Generation

Benchmark Brief

GPQA

Coverage: 1 papers (2.9%)

1 papers (2.9%) mention GPQA.

Examples: HEART: Emotionally-Driven Test-Time Scaling of Language Models

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives