Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W45

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 14 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 14 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequently cited benchmark: CareMedEval. 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 Nov 9, 2025.

Papers: 14 Last published: Nov 9, 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%

14 / 14 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

14.3%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

50.0%

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

  • 14.3% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by critique/edit feedback.
  • automatic metrics appears in 50% of papers in this hub.
  • CareMedEval 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 unspecified rater pools, and annotation is commonly ranking annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (CareMedEval vs Cv-Bench) before comparing methods.

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
OckBench: Measuring the Efficiency of LLM Reasoning

Nov 7, 2025

Automatic Metrics Ockbench Accuracy, Latency Not reported
Error-Aware Knowledge Distillation via Targeted Revision for Customer-Service Summarization

Nov 4, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Cost Not reported
Q$^2$: Quantization-Aware Gradient Balancing and Attention Alignment for Low-Bit Quantization

Nov 8, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Relevance Not reported
Long Grounded Thoughts: Synthesizing Visual Problems and Reasoning Chains at Scale

Nov 7, 2025

Not reported MMLU, MMLU Pro Not reported Not reported
Are We Asking the Right Questions? On Ambiguity in Natural Language Queries for Tabular Data Analysis

Nov 6, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Batch Prompting Suppresses Overthinking Reasoning Under Constraint: How Batch Prompting Suppresses Overthinking in Reasoning Models

Nov 6, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Throughput Not reported
STARS: Synchronous Token Alignment for Robust Supervision in Large Language Models

Nov 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Throughput Not reported
Self-Harmony: Learning to Harmonize Self-Supervision and Self-Play in Test-Time Reinforcement Learning

Nov 3, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
A Proof of Learning Rate Transfer under $μ$P

Nov 3, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Dutch Metaphor Extraction from Cancer Patients' Interviews and Forum Data using LLMs and Human in the Loop

Nov 9, 2025

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (14.3% 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 (14.3% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.4% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

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

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (14.3% 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 (0% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (14.3% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (CareMedEval vs Cv-Bench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

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

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (1)
  • Cost (1)
  • Exact match (1)
  • Relevance (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • CareMedEval (1)
  • Cv Bench (1)
  • MMLU (1)
  • MMLU Pro (1)

Quality Controls

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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