Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W23

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 19 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. 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 8, 2025.

Papers: 19 Last published: Jun 8, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 19 papers for HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W23. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, AIME 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 10.5% of hub papers (2/19); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • AIME appears in 5.3% of hub papers (1/19); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 21.1% of hub papers (4/19); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 10.5% of hub papers (2/19); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (10.5% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (31.6% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (47.4% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (10.5% 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 (10.5% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

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

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (31.6% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (47.4% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

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

Papers with known annotation unit

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. A dependently-typed calculus of event telicity and culminativity

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

  2. 2. DesignBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for MLLM-based Front-end Code Generation

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

  3. 3. Simple Yet Effective: Extracting Private Data Across Clients in Federated Fine-Tuning of Large Language Models

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

  4. 4. EuroGEST: Investigating gender stereotypes in multilingual language models

    Include a human-eval paper to anchor calibration against automated judge settings.

  5. 5. Cross-lingual Collapse: How Language-Centric Foundation Models Shape Reasoning in Large Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. When to use Graphs in RAG: A Comprehensive Analysis for Graph Retrieval-Augmented Generation

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Voice Impression Control in Zero-Shot TTS

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Improving Data Efficiency for LLM Reinforcement Fine-tuning Through Difficulty-targeted Online Data Selection and Rollout Replay

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (10.5% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

human_eval vs automatic_metrics

both=1, left_only=0, right_only=16

1 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=1, left_only=16, right_only=2

1 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs human_eval

both=0, left_only=3, right_only=1

0 papers use both Simulation Env and Human Eval.

Benchmark Brief

AIME

Coverage: 1 papers (5.3%)

1 papers (5.3%) mention AIME.

Examples: Critique-GRPO: Advancing LLM Reasoning with Natural Language and Numerical Feedback

Benchmark Brief

Designbench

Coverage: 1 papers (5.3%)

1 papers (5.3%) mention Designbench.

Examples: DesignBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for MLLM-based Front-end Code Generation

Metric Brief

perplexity

Coverage: 2 papers (10.5%)

2 papers (10.5%) mention perplexity.

Examples: Watermarking Degrades Alignment in Language Models: Analysis and Mitigation , Esoteric Language Models: Bridging Autoregressive and Masked Diffusion LLMs

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives