Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W23

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 51 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 51 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: AIME. 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: 51 Last published: Jun 8, 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: High .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

51 / 51 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

19.6%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

37.3%

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 for trend comparison: review top papers first, then validate shifts in the protocol matrix.

Get this digest every Friday →

Subscribe

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 13.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 25.5% of papers in this hub.
  • AIME is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (2% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.

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

Jun 3, 2025

Automatic Metrics AIME Pass@1 Not reported
AssetOpsBench: Benchmarking AI Agents for Task Automation in Industrial Asset Operations and Maintenance

Jun 4, 2025

Automatic Metrics Assetopsbench Relevance Not reported
Go-Browse: Training Web Agents with Structured Exploration

Jun 4, 2025

Simulation Env WebArena Success rate Not reported
Evaluating Vision-Language and Large Language Models for Automated Student Assessment in Indonesian Classrooms

Jun 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Relevance Not reported
CyclicReflex: Improving Reasoning Models via Cyclical Reflection Token Scheduling

Jun 4, 2025

Not reported MATH 500, GPQA Cost Not reported
BIS Reasoning 1.0: The First Large-Scale Japanese Benchmark for Belief-Inconsistent Syllogistic Reasoning

Jun 8, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Cross-lingual Collapse: How Language-Centric Foundation Models Shape Reasoning in Large Language Models

Jun 6, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Search Arena: Analyzing Search-Augmented LLMs

Jun 5, 2025

Not reported LMSYS Chatbot Arena, Cross Arena Not reported Not reported
Resisting Contextual Interference in RAG via Parametric-Knowledge Reinforcement

Jun 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Enhancing Delta Compression in LLMs via SVD-based Quantization Error Minimization

Jun 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Precision Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (13.7% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (2% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.8% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (13.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.8% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.8% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7.8% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (9.8% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Stratify by benchmark (AIME vs Cross-Arena) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 2% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7.8% 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 (13)
  • Simulation Env (4)
  • Human Eval (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (2)
  • Cost (1)
  • Inference cost (1)
  • Pass@1 (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • AIME (1)
  • Cross Arena (1)
  • Hssbench (1)
  • LMSYS Chatbot Arena (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (1)

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.