Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2025-11

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 174 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 174 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: CareMedEval. 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 Nov 30, 2025.

Papers: 174 Last published: Nov 30, 2025 Global RSS

Researcher Quick Triage

Use this archive page for time-slice monitoring (what changed in evaluation methods, metrics, and protocol quality this period). Quality band: High .

Analysis blocks are computed from the loaded sample (60 of 174 papers).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

6.7%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

38.3%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 1 papers report explicit quality controls for this archive period.
  • Prioritize papers with both benchmark and metric anchors for reliable longitudinal comparisons.

Primary action: Use this slice as early signal only; benchmark/metric anchoring is limited for rigorous period-over-period claims.

Get this digest every Friday →

Subscribe

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 5.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 38.5% of papers in this hub.
  • CareMedEval is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (0.6% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly ranking annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.

Start Here (Highest-Signal Papers In This Slice)

Ranked by protocol completeness and evidence density for faster period-over-period review.

Protocol Matrix (Top 10)

Quickly compare method ingredients across this archive slice.

Paper Eval Modes Benchmarks Metrics Quality Controls
PEFT-Bench: A Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning Methods Benchmark

Nov 26, 2025

Automatic Metrics Peft Bench Cost Not reported
Estonian WinoGrande Dataset: Comparative Analysis of LLM Performance on Human and Machine Translation

Nov 21, 2025

Automatic Metrics Winogrande Accuracy Not reported
HUMORCHAIN: Theory-Guided Multi-Stage Reasoning for Interpretable Multimodal Humor Generation

Nov 21, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Elo Not reported
ConCISE: A Reference-Free Conciseness Evaluation Metric for LLM-Generated Answers

Nov 20, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Conciseness Gold Questions
OGD4All: A Framework for Accessible Interaction with Geospatial Open Government Data Based on Large Language Models

Nov 30, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Recall, Relevance Not reported
AgroCoT: A Chain-of-Thought Benchmark for Evaluating Reasoning in Vision-Language Models for Agriculture

Nov 28, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Precision Not reported
ReAG: Reasoning-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-based Visual Question Answering

Nov 27, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Precision Not reported
Real-Time Long Horizon Air Quality Forecasting via Group-Relative Policy Optimization

Nov 27, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported F1, Cost Not reported
RosettaSpeech: Zero-Shot Speech-to-Speech Translation without Parallel Speech

Nov 26, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Bleu, Jailbreak success rate Not reported
RefTr: Recurrent Refinement of Confluent Trajectories for 3D Vascular Tree Centerlines

Nov 25, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Precision Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.7% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (1.7% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (4.6% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (8% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.

Known Gaps

  • Only 1.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (6.3% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (CareMedEval vs Cv-Bench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 1.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (67)
  • Simulation Env (7)
  • Human Eval (3)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (12)
  • Cost (7)
  • F1 (3)
  • Latency (3)

Top Benchmarks

  • CareMedEval (1)
  • Cv Bench (1)
  • Finagentbench (1)
  • Financebench (1)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)
  • Calibration (1)
  • Gold Questions (1)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.