Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2025-03

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 13 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. 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 Mar 30, 2025.

Papers: 13 Last published: Mar 30, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 13 papers for HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2025-03. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, GPQA and metric focus on accuracy, agreement. 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 23.1% of hub papers (3/13); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • GPQA appears in 7.7% of hub papers (1/13); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 30.8% of hub papers (4/13); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • agreement is reported in 7.7% of hub papers (1/13); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (23.1% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is strong (38.5% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (69.2% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is strong (38.5% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (15.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (23.1% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (38.5% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (69.2% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is strong (38.5% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (15.4% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. A Scalable Framework for Evaluating Health Language Models

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

  2. 2. Lean Formalization of Generalization Error Bound by Rademacher Complexity and Dudley's Entropy Integral

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

  3. 3. EconEvals: Benchmarks and Litmus Tests for Economic Decision-Making by LLM Agents

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

  4. 4. MedPlan: A Two-Stage RAG-Based System for Personalized Medical Plan Generation

    Adds automatic metrics with expert verification for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Imitating AI agents increase diversity in homogeneous information environments but can reduce it in heterogeneous ones

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. EmoGRACE: Aspect-based emotion analysis for social media data

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks

    Adds automatic metrics with expert verification for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. A Survey on the Optimization of Large Language Model-based Agents

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (15.4% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=10, right_only=3

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

GPQA

Coverage: 1 papers (7.7%)

1 papers (7.7%) mention GPQA.

Examples: InftyThink: Breaking the Length Limits of Long-Context Reasoning in Large Language Models

Benchmark Brief

MATH-500

Coverage: 1 papers (7.7%)

1 papers (7.7%) mention MATH-500.

Examples: InftyThink: Breaking the Length Limits of Long-Context Reasoning in Large Language Models

Metric Brief

agreement

Coverage: 1 papers (7.7%)

1 papers (7.7%) mention agreement.

Examples: A Scalable Framework for Evaluating Health Language Models

Metric Brief

coherence

Coverage: 1 papers (7.7%)

1 papers (7.7%) mention coherence.

Examples: EconEvals: Benchmarks and Litmus Tests for Economic Decision-Making by LLM Agents

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives