Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Fortnight Archive: 2026-F06

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 24 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 24 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: Onemillion-Bench. 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 9, 2026.

Papers: 24 Last published: Mar 9, 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 .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

24 / 24 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

20.8%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

54.2%

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 as early signal only; benchmark/metric anchoring is limited for rigorous period-over-period claims.

Get this digest every Friday →

Subscribe

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 8.3% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 41.7% of papers in this hub.
  • Onemillion-Bench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (4.2% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly multi-dimensional rubrics; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.

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
\$OneMillion-Bench: How Far are Language Agents from Human Experts?

Mar 9, 2026

Automatic Metrics Onemillion Bench Accuracy, Coherence Not reported
DC-W2S: Dual-Consensus Weak-to-Strong Training for Reliable Process Reward Modeling in Biological Reasoning

Mar 9, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Adjudication
SmartThinker: Progressive Chain-of-Thought Length Calibration for Efficient Large Language Model Reasoning

Mar 9, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Calibration
Supporting Workflow Reproducibility by Linking Bioinformatics Tools across Papers and Executable Code

Mar 9, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, F1 Not reported
RexDrug: Reliable Multi-Drug Combination Extraction through Reasoning-Enhanced LLMs

Mar 9, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Precision Not reported
Gradually Excavating External Knowledge for Implicit Complex Question Answering

Mar 9, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
EvoScientist: Towards Multi-Agent Evolving AI Scientists for End-to-End Scientific Discovery

Mar 9, 2026

Human Eval Not reported Relevance Not reported
Ramsa: A Large Sociolinguistically Rich Emirati Arabic Speech Corpus for ASR and TTS

Mar 9, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Jailbreak success rate Not reported
DyLLM: Efficient Diffusion LLM Inference via Saliency-based Token Selection and Partial Attention

Mar 9, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Throughput Not reported
ConflictBench: Evaluating Human-AI Conflict via Interactive and Visually Grounded Environments

Mar 9, 2026

Simulation Env Conflictbench Not reported Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (4.2% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.5% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.5% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • This hub still surfaces a concentrated paper set for protocol triage and replication planning.

Known Gaps

  • Only 8.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16.7% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (12.5% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and coherence.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 8.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16.7% 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 (10)
  • Human Eval (2)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (2)
  • Coherence (1)
  • Precision (1)
  • Relevance (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Onemillion Bench (1)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)
  • Calibration (1)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.