Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Quarterly Archive: 2025-Q4

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 124 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 Dec 31, 2025.

Papers: 124 Last published: Dec 31, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 124 papers for HFEPX Quarterly Archive: 2025-Q4. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, DROP 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 9.7% of hub papers (12/124); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • DROP appears in 1.6% of hub papers (2/124); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 25.8% of hub papers (32/124); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 11.3% of hub papers (14/124); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (17.7% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (53.2% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (9.7% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (10.5% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (17.7% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (53.2% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (9.7% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (10.5% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. RAIR: A Rule-Aware Benchmark Uniting Challenging Long-Tail and Visual Salience Subset for E-commerce Relevance Assessment

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

  2. 2. WISE: Web Information Satire and Fakeness Evaluation

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

  3. 3. Coupling Experts and Routers in Mixture-of-Experts via an Auxiliary Loss

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

  4. 4. CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cricket Analytics

    Adds automatic metrics with expert verification for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Where Did This Sentence Come From? Tracing Provenance in LLM Reasoning Distillation

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. DIAL: Direct Iterative Adversarial Learning for Realistic Multi-Turn Dialogue Simulation

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. On the Existence and Behavior of Secondary Attention Sinks

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Stop saying LLM: Large Discourse Models (LDM) and Artificial Discursive Agent (ADA)?

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 5.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9.7% 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=4, right_only=0

1 papers use both Human Eval and Llm As Judge.

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=2, left_only=3, right_only=107

2 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

llm_as_judge vs automatic_metrics

both=0, left_only=1, right_only=109

0 papers use both Llm As Judge and Automatic Metrics.

Benchmark Brief

DROP

Coverage: 2 papers (1.6%)

2 papers (1.6%) mention DROP.

Examples: CricBench: A Multilingual Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Cricket Analytics , Closing the Gap Between Text and Speech Understanding in LLMs

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives