Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W21

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 14 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 14 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: Verifybench. 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 May 24, 2025.

Papers: 14 Last published: May 24, 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%

14 / 14 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

7.1%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

57.1%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 1 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.

Why This Slice Matters (Expanded)

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 21.4% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 50% of papers in this hub.
  • Verifybench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (7.1% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly unspecified rater pools, and annotation is commonly ranking annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

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
VerifyBench: Benchmarking Reference-based Reward Systems for Large Language Models

May 21, 2025

Automatic Metrics Verifybench Accuracy Not reported
HoloLLM: Multisensory Foundation Model for Language-Grounded Human Sensing and Reasoning

May 23, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
On the Design of KL-Regularized Policy Gradient Algorithms for LLM Reasoning

May 23, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Context length Not reported
Accidental Vulnerability: Factors in Fine-Tuning that Shift Model Safeguards

May 22, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Toxicity Not reported
Entailed Opinion Matters: Improving the Fact-Checking Performance of Language Models by Relying on their Entailment Ability

May 21, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Towards Reliable Proof Generation with LLMs: A Neuro-Symbolic Approach

May 20, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
What if Deception Cannot be Detected? A Cross-Linguistic Study on the Limits of Deception Detection from Text

May 19, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Can LLMs Simulate Human Behavioral Variability? A Case Study in the Phonemic Fluency Task

May 22, 2025

Simulation Env Not reported Not reported Not reported
Language Models use Lookbacks to Track Beliefs

May 20, 2025

Not reported Not reported Recall Not reported
Refusal Direction is Universal Across Safety-Aligned Languages

May 22, 2025

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (21.4% 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 (0% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

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

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 7.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (7.1% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 7.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (0% 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 (7)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Verifybench (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (1)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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