Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2025-F26

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: Gold Questions. Frequently cited benchmark: BIRD. 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 Dec 26, 2025.

Papers: 10 Last published: Dec 26, 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-F26. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on BIRD, BrowseComp 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

  • BIRD appears in 10% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • BrowseComp appears in 10% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 50% of hub papers (5/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 20% of hub papers (2/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (20% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (30% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (70% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (10% 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 (20% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

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

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

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

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (70% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cricket Analytics

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

  2. 2. Where Did This Sentence Come From? Tracing Provenance in LLM Reasoning Distillation

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

  3. 3. DIAL: Direct Iterative Adversarial Learning for Realistic Multi-Turn Dialogue Simulation

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

  4. 4. On the Existence and Behavior of Secondary Attention Sinks

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Stop saying LLM: Large Discourse Models (LDM) and Artificial Discursive Agent (ADA)?

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Towards Efficient Agents: A Co-Design of Inference Architecture and System

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Knowledge Distillation with Structured Chain-of-Thought for Text-to-SQL

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. In-Context Algebra

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 10% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (10% 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=1, left_only=9, right_only=0

1 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

BIRD

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention BIRD.

Examples: CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cricket Analytics

Benchmark Brief

BrowseComp

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention BrowseComp.

Examples: Towards Efficient Agents: A Co-Design of Inference Architecture and System

Benchmark Brief

Cricbench

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention Cricbench.

Examples: CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cricket Analytics

Metric Brief

exact match

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention exact match.

Examples: A Domain-Adapted Pipeline for Structured Information Extraction from Police Incident Announcements on Social Media

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives