Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Quarterly Archive: 2025-Q2

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 78 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 Jun 30, 2025.

Papers: 78 Last published: Jun 30, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 78 papers for HFEPX Quarterly Archive: 2025-Q2. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, MATH 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 16.7% of hub papers (13/78); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MATH appears in 3.8% of hub papers (3/78); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 28.2% of hub papers (22/78); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 6.4% of hub papers (5/78); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (23.1% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (1.3% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (29.5% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (51.3% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (11.5% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (3.8% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (23.1% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (1.3% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (29.5% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (51.3% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (11.5% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (3.8% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. TaP: A Taxonomy-Guided Framework for Automated and Scalable Preference Data Generation

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

  2. 2. Unveiling Decision-Making in LLMs for Text Classification : Extraction of influential and interpretable concepts with Sparse Autoencoders

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

  3. 3. Complexity-aware fine-tuning

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

  4. 4. DistillNote: Toward a Functional Evaluation Framework of LLM-Generated Clinical Note Summaries

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to assess judge design and agreement assumptions.

  5. 5. Programming by Backprop: An Instruction is Worth 100 Examples When Finetuning LLMs

    Adds automatic metrics with demonstration data for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Parallel Continuous Chain-of-Thought with Jacobi Iteration

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. PersonalAI: A Systematic Comparison of Knowledge Graph Storage and Retrieval Approaches for Personalized LLM agents

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. A Scoping Review of Synthetic Data Generation by Language Models in Biomedical Research and Application: Data Utility and Quality Perspectives

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 1.3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (11.5% 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=0, left_only=1, right_only=1

0 papers use both Human Eval and Llm As Judge.

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=1, left_only=0, right_only=72

1 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=73

0 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

Benchmark Brief

MATH-500

Coverage: 2 papers (2.6%)

2 papers (2.6%) mention MATH-500.

Examples: $\texttt{SPECS}$: Faster Test-Time Scaling through Speculative Drafts , Spurious Rewards: Rethinking Training Signals in RLVR

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives