Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2025-F24

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. 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 Nov 30, 2025.

Papers: 10 Last published: Nov 30, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 10 papers for HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2025-F24. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, MATH 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 20% of hub papers (2/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MATH appears in 10% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 20% of hub papers (2/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 10% of hub papers (1/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 30% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is strong (40% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (50% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is usable but incomplete (30% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (40% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (50% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

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

Papers with known annotation unit

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. OGD4All: A Framework for Accessible Interaction with Geospatial Open Government Data Based on Large Language Models

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

  2. 2. PEFT-Bench: A Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning Methods Benchmark

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

  3. 3. The Metaphysics We Train: A Heideggerian Reading of Machine Learning

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

  4. 4. Stabilizing Off-Policy Training for Long-Horizon LLM Agent via Turn-Level Importance Sampling and Clipping-Triggered Normalization

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. CDLM: Consistency Diffusion Language Models For Faster Sampling

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Empathetic Cascading Networks: A Multi-Stage Prompting Technique for Reducing Social Biases in Large Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. MUCH: A Multilingual Claim Hallucination Benchmark

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Bridging Symbolic Control and Neural Reasoning in LLM Agents: Structured Cognitive Loop with a Governance Layer

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 10% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=9, right_only=1

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

MATH

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention MATH.

Examples: CDLM: Consistency Diffusion Language Models For Faster Sampling

Benchmark Brief

Peft-Bench

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention Peft-Bench.

Examples: PEFT-Bench: A Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning Methods Benchmark

Metric Brief

cost

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention cost.

Examples: PEFT-Bench: A Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning Methods Benchmark

Metric Brief

latency

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention latency.

Examples: CDLM: Consistency Diffusion Language Models For Faster Sampling

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives