Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2026-F04

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 335 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. 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 Feb 22, 2026.

Papers: 335 Last published: Feb 22, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 335 papers for HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2026-F04. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, 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 10.4% of hub papers (35/335); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MATH appears in 2.7% of hub papers (9/335); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 22.4% of hub papers (75/335); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 7.5% of hub papers (25/335); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (14.6% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (4.5% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (24.8% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (46% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (8.7% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (11.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (14.6% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (4.5% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (24.8% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (46% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (8.7% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (11.3% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Adaptive Data Augmentation with Multi-armed Bandit: Sample-Efficient Embedding Calibration for Implicit Pattern Recognition

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

  2. 2. PerSoMed: A Large-Scale Balanced Dataset for Persian Social Media Text Classification

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

  3. 3. Anatomy of Agentic Memory: Taxonomy and Empirical Analysis of Evaluation and System Limitations

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

  4. 4. Learning to Reason for Multi-Step Retrieval of Personal Context in Personalized Question Answering

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Retrieval Augmented Enhanced Dual Co-Attention Framework for Target Aware Multimodal Bengali Hateful Meme Detection

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Next Reply Prediction X Dataset: Linguistic Discrepancies in Naively Generated Content

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. TurkicNLP: An NLP Toolkit for Turkic Languages

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models. Lessons Learned from General Game Playing

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 4.5% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.7% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs llm_as_judge

both=0, left_only=18, right_only=1

0 papers use both Human Eval and Llm As Judge.

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=2, left_only=16, right_only=293

2 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=295

0 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives