Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2025-02

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 16 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Freeform. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: GSM8K. 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 28, 2025.

Papers: 16 Last published: Feb 28, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 16 papers for HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2025-02. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, with frequent benchmark focus on GSM8K, MMLU 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

  • GSM8K appears in 6.3% of hub papers (1/16); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MMLU appears in 6.3% of hub papers (1/16); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 18.8% of hub papers (3/16); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 12.5% of hub papers (2/16); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Tighten coverage on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is usable but incomplete (31.3% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (43.8% vs 35% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (18.8% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is usable but incomplete (31.3% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (43.8% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (18.8% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Steering Dialogue Dynamics for Robustness against Multi-turn Jailbreaking Attacks

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

  2. 2. The Mighty ToRR: A Benchmark for Table Reasoning and Robustness

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

  3. 3. Compressing Language Models for Specialized Domains

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

  4. 4. PII-Bench: Evaluating Query-Aware Privacy Protection Systems

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Can Multimodal LLMs Perform Time Series Anomaly Detection?

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Bridging Gaps in Natural Language Processing for Yorùbá: A Systematic Review of a Decade of Progress and Prospects

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Distributional Vision-Language Alignment by Cauchy-Schwarz Divergence

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

  8. 8. Moving Beyond Medical Exams: A Clinician-Annotated Fairness Dataset of Real-World Tasks and Ambiguity in Mental Healthcare

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

Known Limitations

  • Only 6.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (18.8% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

Benchmark Brief

GSM8K

Coverage: 1 papers (6.3%)

1 papers (6.3%) mention GSM8K.

Examples: MathFimer: Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning by Expanding Reasoning Steps through Fill-in-the-Middle Task

Benchmark Brief

MMLU

Coverage: 1 papers (6.3%)

1 papers (6.3%) mention MMLU.

Examples: Enhancing Multilingual LLM Pretraining with Model-Based Data Selection

Benchmark Brief

Pii-Bench

Coverage: 1 papers (6.3%)

1 papers (6.3%) mention Pii-Bench.

Examples: PII-Bench: Evaluating Query-Aware Privacy Protection Systems

Metric Brief

cost

Coverage: 2 papers (12.5%)

2 papers (12.5%) mention cost.

Examples: Compressing Language Models for Specialized Domains , vCache: Verified Semantic Prompt Caching

Metric Brief

error rate

Coverage: 2 papers (12.5%)

2 papers (12.5%) mention error rate.

Examples: Glycemic-Aware and Architecture-Agnostic Training Framework for Blood Glucose Forecasting in Type 1 Diabetes , vCache: Verified Semantic Prompt Caching

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives