Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2026-F01

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 93 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 93 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: APPS. 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 Jan 11, 2026.

Papers: 93 Last published: Jan 11, 2026 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 .

Analysis blocks are computed from the loaded sample (60 of 93 papers).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

13.3%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

40.0%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 1 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 for trend comparison: review top papers first, then validate shifts in the protocol matrix.

Get this digest every Friday →

Subscribe

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 17.2% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 33.3% of papers in this hub.
  • APPS is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • 1 sampled papers report both human evaluation and LLM-as-judge, supporting direct agreement checks.
  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (2.2% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly ranking annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.

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
Symphonym: Universal Phonetic Embeddings for Cross-Script Name Matching

Jan 11, 2026

Automatic Metrics Medieval Recall, Mrr Not reported
From Intuition to Calibrated Judgment: A Rubric-Based Expert-Panel Study of Human Detection of LLM-Generated Korean Text

Jan 6, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Agreement Calibration, Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
†DAGGER: Distractor-Aware Graph Generation for Executable Reasoning in Math Problems

Jan 11, 2026

Automatic Metrics DROP Accuracy Not reported
EVM-QuestBench: An Execution-Grounded Benchmark for Natural-Language Transaction Code Generation

Jan 10, 2026

Automatic Metrics Evm Questbench Accuracy, Precision Not reported
FormationEval, an open multiple-choice benchmark for petroleum geoscience

Jan 5, 2026

Automatic Metrics Formationeval Accuracy, Cost Not reported
DeCode: Decoupling Content and Delivery for Medical QA

Jan 5, 2026

Automatic Metrics Healthbench Relevance Not reported
Distilling Feedback into Memory-as-a-Tool

Jan 9, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost, Inference cost Not reported
HEART: A Unified Benchmark for Assessing Humans and LLMs in Emotional Support Dialogue

Jan 9, 2026

Human Eval, Llm As Judge Not reported Agreement Not reported
CRANE: Causal Relevance Analysis of Language-Specific Neurons in Multilingual Large Language Models

Jan 8, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Relevance Not reported
What Matters For Safety Alignment?

Jan 7, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Success rate, Jailbreak success rate Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (17.2% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (2.2% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.4% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (18.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.6% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (14% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.

Known Gaps

  • Only 2.2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.6% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (14% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (APPS vs evm-questbench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 2.2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.6% 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 (31)
  • Llm As Judge (5)
  • Human Eval (1)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (7)
  • Cost (5)
  • Agreement (3)
  • Recall (3)

Top Benchmarks

  • APPS (1)
  • Evm Questbench (1)
  • FCMBench (1)
  • Jmedethicbench (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (2)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (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.