Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2025-F21

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 32 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 18, 2025.

Papers: 32 Last published: Oct 18, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 32 papers for HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2025-F21. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, AlpacaEval 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 12.5% of hub papers (4/32); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • AlpacaEval appears in 3.1% of hub papers (1/32); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 25% of hub papers (8/32); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 6.3% of hub papers (2/32); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (15.6% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (3.1% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (28.1% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (53.1% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (15.6% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (15.6% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (3.1% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (28.1% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (53.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (15.6% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. FrugalPrompt: Reducing Contextual Overhead in Large Language Models via Token Attribution

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

  2. 2. MNO: Multiscale Neural Operator for 3D Computational Fluid Dynamics

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

  3. 3. Detecting Early and Implicit Suicidal Ideation via Longitudinal and Information Environment Signals on Social Media

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

  4. 4. LUMI: Unsupervised Intent Clustering with Multiple Pseudo-Labels

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Understanding the Ability of LLMs to Handle Character-Level Perturbation

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Assessing Web Search Credibility and Response Groundedness in Chat Assistants

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Closing the Gap Between Text and Speech Understanding in LLMs

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. MemoTime: Memory-Augmented Temporal Knowledge Graph Enhanced Large Language Model Reasoning

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 3.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (6.3% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=1, left_only=0, right_only=29

1 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=1, left_only=29, right_only=2

1 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs human_eval

both=0, left_only=3, right_only=1

0 papers use both Simulation Env and Human Eval.

Benchmark Brief

AlpacaEval

Coverage: 1 papers (3.1%)

1 papers (3.1%) mention AlpacaEval.

Examples: Revisiting Self-Play Preference Optimization: On the Role of Prompt Difficulty

Benchmark Brief

Arena-Hard

Coverage: 1 papers (3.1%)

1 papers (3.1%) mention Arena-Hard.

Examples: Revisiting Self-Play Preference Optimization: On the Role of Prompt Difficulty

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives