Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2024-12

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 12 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 12 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Human Eval, Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: Biggenbench. Common metric signal: agreement. 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 Dec 31, 2024.

Papers: 12 Last published: Dec 31, 2024 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: Medium .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

12 / 12 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

25.0%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

25.0%

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 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

  • 16.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • human evaluation appears in 16.7% of papers in this hub.
  • Biggenbench 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 (8.3% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly pairwise annotation; 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
LMUnit: Fine-grained Evaluation with Natural Language Unit Tests

Dec 17, 2024

Human Eval Biggenbench, Rewardbench Agreement Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
GRASP: Replace Redundant Layers with Adaptive Singular Parameters for Efficient Model Compression

Dec 31, 2024

Not reported Not reported Cost, Inference cost Calibration
Multi-modal, Multi-task, Multi-criteria Automatic Evaluation with Vision Language Models

Dec 19, 2024

Human Eval Harmoniceval Not reported Not reported
Predicting Subway Passenger Flows under Incident Situation with Causality

Dec 9, 2024

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Evaluating LLMs' Divergent Thinking Capabilities for Scientific Idea Generation with Minimal Context

Dec 23, 2024

Not reported Liveideabench Not reported Not reported
Efficient Context Propagating Perceiver Architectures for Auto-Regressive Language Modeling

Dec 8, 2024

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
A Survey of Query Optimization in Large Language Models

Dec 23, 2024

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
LLM4AD: A Platform for Algorithm Design with Large Language Model

Dec 23, 2024

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Efficient Continual Learning for Small Language Models with a Discrete Key-Value Bottleneck

Dec 11, 2024

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
SpecFuse: Ensembling Large Language Models via Next-Segment Prediction

Dec 10, 2024

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.3% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

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

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Stratify by benchmark (Biggenbench vs Rewardbench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both agreement and latency.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 16.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.3% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Evaluation Modes

  • Human Eval (2)
  • Automatic Metrics (1)

Top Metrics

  • Agreement (1)
  • Latency (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Biggenbench (1)
  • Rewardbench (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (1)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (1)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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