Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2025-08

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 29 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: DROP. 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 Aug 28, 2025.

Papers: 29 Last published: Aug 28, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 29 papers for HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2025-08. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, human evaluation, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on DROP, GSM8K 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

  • DROP appears in 6.9% of hub papers (2/29); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • GSM8K appears in 6.9% of hub papers (2/29); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 27.6% of hub papers (8/29); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 6.9% of hub papers (2/29); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (6.9% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (3.4% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (24.1% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (41.4% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (6.9% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (6.9% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (3.4% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (24.1% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (41.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (6.9% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. EO-1: An Open Unified Embodied Foundation Model for General Robot Control

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

  2. 2. NPG-Muse: Scaling Long Chain-of-Thought Reasoning with NP-Hard Graph Problems

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

  3. 3. Diffusion Language Models Know the Answer Before Decoding

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

  4. 4. Your AI Bosses Are Still Prejudiced: The Emergence of Stereotypes in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Language and Experience: A Computational Model of Social Learning in Complex Tasks

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Hybrid Deep Searcher: Scalable Parallel and Sequential Search Reasoning

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Why Synthetic Isn't Real Yet: A Diagnostic Framework for Contact Center Dialogue Generation

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Classification errors distort findings in automated speech processing: examples and solutions from child-development research

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 3.4% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=27

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=27, right_only=1

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

human_eval vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=1

0 papers use both Human Eval and Simulation Env.

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives