Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2026-01

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 50 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. 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 Jan 31, 2026.

Papers: 50 Last published: Jan 31, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 50 papers for HFEPX Monthly Archive: 2026-01. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, ALFWorld 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 16% of hub papers (8/50); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • ALFWorld appears in 2% of hub papers (1/50); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 8% of hub papers (4/50); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 6% of hub papers (3/50); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (22% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (8% vs 30% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is strong (36% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (42% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (16% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (14% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (22% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (8% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (36% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (42% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (16% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (14% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Cross-Cultural Expert-Level Art Critique Evaluation with Vision-Language Models

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

  2. 2. From Associations to Activations: Comparing Behavioral and Hidden-State Semantic Geometry in LLMs

    High citation traction makes this a useful baseline for method and protocol context.

  3. 3. Unmasking Reasoning Processes: A Process-aware Benchmark for Evaluating Structural Mathematical Reasoning in LLMs

    High citation traction makes this a useful baseline for method and protocol context.

  4. 4. KBVQ-MoE: KLT-guided SVD with Bias-Corrected Vector Quantization for MoE Large Language Models

    High citation traction makes this a useful baseline for method and protocol context.

  5. 5. Large Language Models as Automatic Annotators and Annotation Adjudicators for Fine-Grained Opinion Analysis

    Include a human-eval paper to anchor calibration against automated judge settings.

  6. 6. RebuttalAgent: Strategic Persuasion in Academic Rebuttal via Theory of Mind

    Include a human-eval paper to anchor calibration against automated judge settings.

  7. 7. Embodied Task Planning via Graph-Informed Action Generation with Large Language Model

    Adds simulation environments for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Indic-TunedLens: Interpreting Multilingual Models in Indian Languages

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 8% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (16% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs llm_as_judge

both=1, left_only=2, right_only=0

1 papers use both Human Eval and Llm As Judge.

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=3, right_only=42

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=42

0 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

Benchmark Brief

ALFWorld

Coverage: 1 papers (2%)

1 papers (2%) mention ALFWorld.

Examples: Embodied Task Planning via Graph-Informed Action Generation with Large Language Model

Benchmark Brief

DocVQA

Coverage: 1 papers (2%)

1 papers (2%) mention DocVQA.

Examples: Chain-of-Thought Compression Should Not Be Blind: V-Skip for Efficient Multimodal Reasoning via Dual-Path Anchoring

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives