Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W41

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 89 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 89 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: AlpacaEval. 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 Oct 12, 2025.

Papers: 89 Last published: Oct 12, 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 .

Analysis blocks are computed from the loaded sample (60 of 89 papers).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

13.3%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

35.0%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 4 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

  • 14.6% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 29.2% of papers in this hub.
  • AlpacaEval 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 (2.2% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly ranking 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
CQA-Eval: Designing Reliable Evaluations of Multi-paragraph Clinical QA under Resource Constraints

Oct 12, 2025

Automatic Metrics Cqa Eval Agreement, Cost Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
How Reliable is Language Model Micro-Benchmarking?

Oct 9, 2025

Automatic Metrics MMLU, MMLU Pro Accuracy, Cost Not reported
FML-bench: Benchmarking Machine Learning Agents for Scientific Research

Oct 12, 2025

Automatic Metrics Fml Bench Cost Not reported
Language steering in latent space to mitigate unintended code-switching

Oct 11, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Calibration
GraphMERT: Efficient and Scalable Distillation of Reliable Knowledge Graphs from Unstructured Data

Oct 10, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
DSPO: Stable and Efficient Policy Optimization for Agentic Search and Reasoning

Oct 10, 2025

Simulation Env HotpotQA Not reported Not reported
Augmenting Rating-Scale Measures with Text-Derived Items Using the Information-Determined Scoring (IDS) Framework

Oct 9, 2025

Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env Not reported Accuracy, Precision Not reported
EconCausal: A Context-Aware Causal Reasoning Benchmark for Large Language Models in Social Science

Oct 8, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Cost Adjudication
FactAppeal: Identifying Epistemic Factual Appeals in News Media

Oct 12, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported F1, F1 macro Not reported
You only need 4 extra tokens: Synergistic Test-time Adaptation for LLMs

Oct 11, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Rouge, Perplexity Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (14.6% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (4.5% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (15.7% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is a replication risk (18% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (9% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (10.1% vs 35% target).

Strengths

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

Known Gaps

  • Only 4.5% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (10.1% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with llm_as_judge pages to benchmark automated-vs-human evaluation tradeoffs.
  • Stratify by benchmark (AlpacaEval vs Arena-Hard) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 4.5% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (9% 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 (26)
  • Simulation Env (5)
  • Human Eval (2)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (11)
  • Cost (5)
  • Latency (2)
  • Recall (2)

Top Benchmarks

  • AlpacaEval (2)
  • Arena Hard (2)
  • LMSYS Chatbot Arena (2)
  • AlpacaEval 2.0 (1)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (2)
  • Adjudication (1)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (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.