Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W25

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 13 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 13 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequently cited benchmark: DROP. 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 22, 2025.

Papers: 13 Last published: Jun 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%

13 / 13 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

30.8%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

53.8%

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.

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 7.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by expert verification.
  • automatic metrics appears in 53.8% of papers in this hub.
  • DROP 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 ranking annotation; 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
PersonalAI: A Systematic Comparison of Knowledge Graph Storage and Retrieval Approaches for Personalized LLM agents

Jun 20, 2025

Automatic Metrics HotpotQA, TriviaQA Accuracy Not reported
SPARE: Single-Pass Annotation with Reference-Guided Evaluation for Automatic Process Supervision and Reward Modelling

Jun 18, 2025

Automatic Metrics GSM8K, Processbench Accuracy, Precision Not reported
AgentSynth: Scalable Task Generation for Generalist Computer-Use Agents

Jun 17, 2025

Automatic Metrics DROP Cost Not reported
DistillNote: Toward a Functional Evaluation Framework of LLM-Generated Clinical Note Summaries

Jun 20, 2025

Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics Not reported Auroc Not reported
Long-Context Generalization with Sparse Attention

Jun 19, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Perplexity Not reported
A Scoping Review of Synthetic Data Generation by Language Models in Biomedical Research and Application: Data Utility and Quality Perspectives

Jun 19, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Relevance Not reported
DeVisE: Behavioral Testing of Medical Large Language Models

Jun 18, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Perplexity Not reported
Revela: Dense Retriever Learning via Language Modeling

Jun 19, 2025

Not reported BEIR Not reported Not reported
LLM Probability Concentration: How Alignment Shrinks the Generative Horizon

Jun 22, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
When Does Divide and Conquer Work for Long Context LLM? A Noise Decomposition Framework

Jun 19, 2025

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.7% 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 (15.4% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.1% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (15.4% 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 (7.7% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (15.4% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Stratify by benchmark (DROP vs GSM8K) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and auroc.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (7.7% 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)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (1)
  • Auroc (1)
  • Cost (1)
  • Precision (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • DROP (1)
  • GSM8K (1)
  • Processbench (1)

Quality Controls

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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