Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2025-04

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 14 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. 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 Apr 28, 2025.

Papers: 14 Last published: Apr 28, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 14 papers for HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2025-04. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, MedQA and metric focus on accuracy, precision. 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 28.6% of hub papers (4/14); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MedQA appears in 7.1% of hub papers (1/14); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 35.7% of hub papers (5/14); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • precision is reported in 14.3% of hub papers (2/14); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Tighten coverage on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is usable but incomplete (35.7% 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 (35.7% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (50% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (14.3% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (7.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is usable but incomplete (35.7% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

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

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (35.7% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (50% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (14.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. A False Sense of Privacy: Evaluating Textual Data Sanitization Beyond Surface-level Privacy Leakage

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

  2. 2. Reshaping MOFs text mining with a dynamic multi-agents framework of large language model

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

  3. 3. Toward Safe and Human-Aligned Game Conversational Recommendation via Multi-Agent Decomposition

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

  4. 4. How much does context affect the accuracy of AI health advice?

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. FLUKE: A Linguistically-Driven and Task-Agnostic Framework for Robustness Evaluation

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. ConformalNL2LTL: Translating Natural Language Instructions into Temporal Logic Formulas with Conformal Correctness Guarantees

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Cost-of-Pass: An Economic Framework for Evaluating Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Evaluating the Diversity and Quality of LLM Generated Content

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

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (14.3% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives