Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2026-F05

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 943 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 943 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: DROP. 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 Mar 8, 2026.

Papers: 943 Last published: Mar 8, 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 943 papers).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

11.7%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

35.0%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 2 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

  • 11.9% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 26.8% of papers in this hub.
  • DROP is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (1.6% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.

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
Breaking Training Bottlenecks: Effective and Stable Reinforcement Learning for Coding Models

Mar 8, 2026

Automatic Metrics LiveCodeBench Accuracy Not reported
Taiwan Safety Benchmark and Breeze Guard: Toward Trustworthy AI for Taiwanese Mandarin

Mar 7, 2026

Automatic Metrics Ts Bench F1 Not reported
Benchmarking Large Language Models for Quebec Insurance: From Closed-Book to Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Mar 8, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Calibration
To Predict or Not to Predict? Towards reliable uncertainty estimation in the presence of noise

Mar 7, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported F1, F1 macro Calibration
QuadAI at SemEval-2026 Task 3: Ensemble Learning of Hybrid RoBERTa and LLMs for Dimensional Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis

Mar 8, 2026

Not reported Semeval Rmse Not reported
An Efficient and Effective Evaluator for Text2SQL Models on Unseen and Unlabeled Data

Mar 8, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
KohakuRAG: A simple RAG framework with hierarchical document indexing

Mar 8, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Precision Not reported
KCoEvo: A Knowledge Graph Augmented Framework for Evolutionary Code Generation

Mar 8, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Nwāchā Munā: A Devanagari Speech Corpus and Proximal Transfer Benchmark for Nepal Bhasha ASR

Mar 8, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Error rate, Cer Not reported
MAWARITH: A Dataset and Benchmark for Legal Inheritance Reasoning with LLMs

Mar 8, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.9% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (3% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.1% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.5% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (10.9% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.5% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (10.9% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

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

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.5% 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 (253)
  • Simulation Env (39)
  • Llm As Judge (22)
  • Human Eval (16)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (91)
  • Cost (38)
  • Precision (23)
  • F1 (21)

Top Benchmarks

  • DROP (6)
  • SWE Bench (5)
  • AIME (3)
  • MMLU (3)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (15)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (8)
  • Adjudication (6)
  • Gold Questions (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.