Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2026-01

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 240 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 240 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: AIME. 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 Jan 31, 2026.

Papers: 240 Last published: Jan 31, 2026 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 240 papers).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

13.3%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

26.7%

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 for trend comparison: review top papers first, then validate shifts in the protocol matrix.

Get this digest every Friday →

Subscribe

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 13.8% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 26.7% of papers in this hub.
  • AIME is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • 1 sampled papers report both human evaluation and LLM-as-judge, supporting direct agreement checks.
  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (2.1% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.

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
Do Schwartz Higher-Order Values Help Sentence-Level Human Value Detection? A Study of Hierarchical Gating and Calibration

Jan 31, 2026

Automatic Metrics Valueeval Cost Calibration
PaperBanana: Automating Academic Illustration for AI Scientists

Jan 30, 2026

Automatic Metrics Paperbananabench Faithfulness, Conciseness Not reported
Embodied Task Planning via Graph-Informed Action Generation with Large Language Model

Jan 29, 2026

Simulation Env ALFWorld Pass@1, Cost Not reported
A Geometric Taxonomy of Hallucinations in LLMs

Jan 26, 2026

Automatic Metrics TruthfulQA Auroc Not reported
Should LLMs, like, Generate How Users Talk? Building Dialect-Accurate Dialog[ue]s Beyond the American Default with MDial

Jan 30, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Precision Not reported
Decoupling Strategy and Execution in Task-Focused Dialogue via Goal-Oriented Preference Optimization

Jan 24, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Task success Not reported
Can Small Language Models Handle Context-Summarized Multi-Turn Customer-Service QA? A Synthetic Data-Driven Comparative Evaluation

Jan 31, 2026

Human Eval, Llm As Judge Not reported Cost Not reported
Unmasking Reasoning Processes: A Process-aware Benchmark for Evaluating Structural Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs

Jan 31, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
KBVQ-MoE: KLT-guided SVD with Bias-Corrected Vector Quantization for MoE Large Language Models

Jan 30, 2026

Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env Not reported Accuracy Not reported
EnsembleLink: Accurate Record Linkage Without Training Data

Jan 29, 2026

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (13.8% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (2.5% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.8% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.1% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 2.5% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.8% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (12.1% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (AIME vs ALFWorld) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 2.5% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.8% 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 (64)
  • Simulation Env (10)
  • Llm As Judge (7)
  • Human Eval (6)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (24)
  • Cost (11)
  • Latency (4)
  • Recall (4)

Top Benchmarks

  • AIME (1)
  • ALFWorld (1)
  • APPS (1)
  • BFCL (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (5)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (2)
  • Adjudication (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.