Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2025-09

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 44 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequent quality control: Calibration. 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 Sep 30, 2025.

Papers: 44 Last published: Sep 30, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 44 papers for HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2025-09. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, LLM-as-judge, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, AdvBench 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

  • Retrieval appears in 6.8% of hub papers (3/44); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • AdvBench appears in 2.3% of hub papers (1/44); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 27.3% of hub papers (12/44); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 9.1% of hub papers (4/44); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (15.9% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (47.7% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (13.6% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (11.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (15.9% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (18.2% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (47.7% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (13.6% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (11.4% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Latent Thinking Optimization: Your Latent Reasoning Language Model Secretly Encodes Reward Signals in Its Latent Thoughts

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

  2. 2. LD-MoLE: Learnable Dynamic Routing for Mixture of LoRA Experts

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

  3. 3. Polychromic Objectives for Reinforcement Learning

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

  4. 4. Predicting Training Re-evaluation Curves Enables Effective Data Curriculums for LLMs

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Generative Value Conflicts Reveal LLM Priorities

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Incentive-Aligned Multi-Source LLM Summaries

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. TimeOmni-1: Incentivizing Complex Reasoning with Time Series in Large Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Inducing Dyslexia in Vision Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 9.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (13.6% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=2, right_only=38

0 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=38, right_only=5

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs llm_as_judge

both=1, left_only=4, right_only=1

1 papers use both Simulation Env and Llm As Judge.

Benchmark Brief

AdvBench

Coverage: 1 papers (2.3%)

1 papers (2.3%) mention AdvBench.

Examples: A Simple and Efficient Jailbreak Method Exploiting LLMs' Helpfulness

Benchmark Brief

AIME

Coverage: 1 papers (2.3%)

1 papers (2.3%) mention AIME.

Examples: ATTS: Asynchronous Test-Time Scaling via Conformal Prediction

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives