Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W40

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 19 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 19 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. Common metric signal: precision. 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 Oct 5, 2025.

Papers: 19 Last published: Oct 5, 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%

19 / 19 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

10.5%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

42.1%

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 Slice Matters (Expanded)

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 10.5% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by demonstration data.
  • automatic metrics appears in 31.6% of papers in this hub.
  • precision is a repeated reporting metric here, enabling more consistent cross-paper score interpretation.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

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
PoLi-RL: A Point-to-List Reinforcement Learning Framework for Conditional Semantic Textual Similarity

Oct 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Spearman Not reported
Token Hidden Reward: Steering Exploration-Exploitation in Group Relative Deep Reinforcement Learning

Oct 4, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Pass@k Not reported
Finding Diamonds in Conversation Haystacks: A Benchmark for Conversational Data Retrieval

Oct 3, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Ndcg Not reported
Generative Value Conflicts Reveal LLM Priorities

Sep 29, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Harmlessness Not reported
Incentive-Aligned Multi-Source LLM Summaries

Sep 29, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
TimeOmni-1: Incentivizing Complex Reasoning with Time Series in Large Language Models

Sep 29, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
On Discovering Algorithms for Adversarial Imitation Learning

Oct 1, 2025

Simulation Env Not reported Not reported Not reported
SECA: Semantically Equivalent and Coherent Attacks for Eliciting LLM Hallucinations

Oct 5, 2025

Not reported Not reported Coherence Not reported
BioX-Bridge: Model Bridging for Unsupervised Cross-Modal Knowledge Transfer across Biosignals

Oct 2, 2025

Not reported Not reported Cost Not reported
BiasFreeBench: a Benchmark for Mitigating Bias in Large Language Model Responses

Sep 30, 2025

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (10.5% 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 (0% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

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

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (26.3% 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 (10.5% coverage).
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (0% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both precision and spearman.

Recommended Queries

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 Snapshot (Detailed)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (6)
  • Llm As Judge (1)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Precision (1)
  • Spearman (1)

Top Benchmarks

Quality Controls

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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