Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Quarterly Archive: 2024-Q4

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 28 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 10, 2026). 28 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: Biggenbench. Common metric signal: agreement. 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 Dec 31, 2024.

Papers: 28 Last published: Dec 31, 2024 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 .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

28 / 28 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

10.7%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

21.4%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 2 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

  • 10.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 14.3% of papers in this hub.
  • Biggenbench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (3.6% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly pairwise 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
LMUnit: Fine-grained Evaluation with Natural Language Unit Tests

Dec 17, 2024

Human Eval Biggenbench, Rewardbench Agreement Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
GRASP: Replace Redundant Layers with Adaptive Singular Parameters for Efficient Model Compression

Dec 31, 2024

Not reported Not reported Cost, Inference cost Calibration
Multi-modal, Multi-task, Multi-criteria Automatic Evaluation with Vision Language Models

Dec 19, 2024

Human Eval Harmoniceval Not reported Not reported
Predicting Subway Passenger Flows under Incident Situation with Causality

Dec 9, 2024

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Just KIDDIN: Knowledge Infusion and Distillation for Detection of INdecent Memes

Nov 19, 2024

Automatic Metrics Not reported F1, Recall Not reported
Renaissance: Investigating the Pretraining of Vision-Language Encoders

Nov 11, 2024

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Not reported
LLM2CLIP: Powerful Language Model Unlocks Richer Cross-Modality Representation

Nov 7, 2024

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Not reported
Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know?

Oct 18, 2024

Llm As Judge Not reported Not reported Not reported
Evaluating LLMs' Divergent Thinking Capabilities for Scientific Idea Generation with Minimal Context

Dec 23, 2024

Not reported Liveideabench Not reported Not reported
Efficient Context Propagating Perceiver Architectures for Auto-Regressive Language Modeling

Dec 8, 2024

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (10.7% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.1% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.1% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.1% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (3.6% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (3.6% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 7.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (3.6% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (3.6% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (Biggenbench vs KG-retrieval) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both agreement and latency.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 7.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (3.6% 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 (4)
  • Human Eval (2)
  • Llm As Judge (1)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Agreement (1)
  • Latency (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Biggenbench (1)
  • KG Retrieval (1)
  • Rewardbench (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (1)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (1)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.