Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W44

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 18 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequent quality control: Inter Annotator Agreement Reported. Frequently cited benchmark: afri-semeval. 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 31, 2025.

Papers: 18 Last published: Oct 31, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 18 papers for HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W44. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on afri-semeval, APPS and metric focus on accuracy, agreement. 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

  • afri-semeval appears in 5.6% of hub papers (1/18); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • APPS appears in 5.6% of hub papers (1/18); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 22.2% of hub papers (4/18); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • agreement is reported in 11.1% of hub papers (2/18); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (22.2% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 30% target).
  • Close gap on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (50% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (22.2% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (50% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (5.6% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. BEAT: Visual Backdoor Attacks on VLM-based Embodied Agents via Contrastive Trigger Learning

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

  2. 2. When Distributions Shifts: Causal Generalization for Low-Resource Languages

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

  3. 3. Beyond a Million Tokens: Benchmarking and Enhancing Long-Term Memory in LLMs

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

  4. 4. Beyond Understanding: Evaluating the Pragmatic Gap in LLMs' Cultural Processing of Figurative Language

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

  5. 5. Incentivizing Agentic Reasoning in LLM Judges via Tool-Integrated Reinforcement Learning

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

  6. 6. Probability Distributions Computed by Autoregressive Transformers

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Reasoning Up the Instruction Ladder for Controllable Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics with red-team protocols for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Temporal Sparse Autoencoders: Leveraging the Sequential Nature of Language for Interpretability

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 5.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (5.6% 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=1, right_only=14

1 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=1, left_only=14, right_only=2

1 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs human_eval

both=0, left_only=3, right_only=2

0 papers use both Simulation Env and Human Eval.

Benchmark Brief

afri-semeval

Coverage: 1 papers (5.6%)

1 papers (5.6%) mention afri-semeval.

Examples: When Distributions Shifts: Causal Generalization for Low-Resource Languages

Benchmark Brief

APPS

Coverage: 1 papers (5.6%)

1 papers (5.6%) mention APPS.

Examples: The Tool Decathlon: Benchmarking Language Agents for Diverse, Realistic, and Long-Horizon Task Execution

Benchmark Brief

Retrieval

Coverage: 1 papers (5.6%)

1 papers (5.6%) mention Retrieval.

Examples: Beyond a Million Tokens: Benchmarking and Enhancing Long-Term Memory in LLMs

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives