Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2026-F03

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. 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 Feb 8, 2026.

Papers: 34 Last published: Feb 8, 2026 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: 2026-F03. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, MATH and metric focus on accuracy, latency. 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.
  • MATH appears in 5.9% of hub papers (2/34); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 14.7% of hub papers (5/34); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • latency is reported in 8.8% of hub papers (3/34); 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 (0% vs 30% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is strong (38.2% 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 (17.6% 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 (0% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (38.2% 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 (17.6% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Transforming Science Learning Materials in the Era of Artificial Intelligence

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

  2. 2. AceGRPO: Adaptive Curriculum Enhanced Group Relative Policy Optimization for Autonomous Machine Learning Engineering

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

  3. 3. LLMs Know More About Numbers than They Can Say

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

  4. 4. Do We Need Adam? Surprisingly Strong and Sparse Reinforcement Learning with SGD in LLMs

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. How Well Can LLM Agents Simulate End-User Security and Privacy Attitudes and Behaviors?

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. RoPE-LIME: RoPE-Space Locality + Sparse-K Sampling for Efficient LLM Attribution

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Protean Compiler: An Agile Framework to Drive Fine-grain Phase Ordering

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Transport and Merge: Cross-Architecture Merging for Large Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% 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

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=1, left_only=27, right_only=6

1 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

MATH

Coverage: 2 papers (5.9%)

2 papers (5.9%) mention MATH.

Examples: LLMs Know More About Numbers than They Can Say , Proof-RM: A Scalable and Generalizable Reward Model for Math Proof

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives