Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W08

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 16 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 16 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Freeform. Frequently cited benchmark: AlpacaEval 2.0. 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 Feb 22, 2025.

Papers: 16 Last published: Feb 22, 2025 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: Medium .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

16 / 16 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

18.8%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

31.3%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 0 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

  • 25% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 31.3% of papers in this hub.
  • AlpacaEval 2.0 is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Quality-control reporting is sparse in this slice; prioritize papers with explicit calibration or adjudication steps.
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly Freeform; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.

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
Moving Beyond Medical Exams: A Clinician-Annotated Fairness Dataset of Real-World Tasks and Ambiguity in Mental Healthcare

Feb 22, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Integrating Personality into Digital Humans: A Review of LLM-Driven Approaches for Virtual Reality

Feb 22, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Latency Not reported
HiFi-KPI: A Dataset for Hierarchical KPI Extraction from Earnings Filings

Feb 21, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported F1, F1 macro Not reported
Less is More: Improving LLM Alignment via Preference Data Selection

Feb 20, 2025

Not reported AlpacaEval 2.0 Not reported Not reported
Glycemic-Aware and Architecture-Agnostic Training Framework for Blood Glucose Forecasting in Type 1 Diabetes

Feb 20, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, F1 Not reported
MKE-Coder: Multi-Axial Knowledge with Evidence Verification in ICD Coding for Chinese EMRs

Feb 19, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Integrating Arithmetic Learning Improves Mathematical Reasoning in Smaller Models

Feb 18, 2025

Not reported GSM8K Not reported Not reported
MathFimer: Enhancing Mathematical Reasoning by Expanding Reasoning Steps through Fill-in-the-Middle Task

Feb 17, 2025

Not reported GSM8K Not reported Not reported
Don't Stop the Multi-Party! On Generating Synthetic Written Multi-Party Conversations with Constraints

Feb 19, 2025

Llm As Judge Not reported Not reported Not reported
SEFL: A Framework for Generating Synthetic Educational Assignment Feedback with LLM Agents

Feb 18, 2025

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (25% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (18.8% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (12.5% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • This hub still surfaces a concentrated paper set for protocol triage and replication planning.

Known Gaps

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (18.8% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (12.5% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (18.8% 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 (5)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • AlpacaEval 2.0 (1)

Quality Controls

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.