Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W46

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 10 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Frequently cited benchmark: Retrieval. 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 15, 2025.

Papers: 10 Last published: Nov 15, 2025 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 10 papers for HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W46. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, Rpts-Eval and metric focus on accuracy, coherence. 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

  • Retrieval appears in 30% of hub papers (3/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Rpts-Eval appears in 10% of hub papers (1/10); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 30% of hub papers (3/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • coherence is reported in 10% of hub papers (1/10); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is strong (60% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (60% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is strong (60% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (60% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (10% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. EARL: Entropy-Aware RL Alignment of LLMs for Reliable RTL Code Generation

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

  2. 2. CLARITY: Contextual Linguistic Adaptation and Accent Retrieval for Dual-Bias Mitigation in Text-to-Speech Generation

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

  3. 3. Multimodal Peer Review Simulation with Actionable To-Do Recommendations for Community-Aware Manuscript Revisions

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

  4. 4. Mastering Olympiad-Level Physics with Artificial Intelligence

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Chain of Summaries: Summarization Through Iterative Questioning

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. State of the Art in Text Classification for South Slavic Languages: Fine-Tuning or Prompting?

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Intelligence per Watt: Measuring Intelligence Efficiency of Local AI

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Beyond Fact Retrieval: Episodic Memory for RAG with Generative Semantic Workspaces

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 0% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (10% coverage).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.

Research Utility Links

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=0, left_only=9, right_only=1

0 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

Benchmark Brief

Rpts-Eval

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention Rpts-Eval.

Examples: RPTS: Tree-Structured Reasoning Process Scoring for Faithful Multimodal Evaluation

Benchmark Brief

SQuAD

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention SQuAD.

Examples: Chain of Summaries: Summarization Through Iterative Questioning

Metric Brief

coherence

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention coherence.

Examples: Beyond Fact Retrieval: Episodic Memory for RAG with Generative Semantic Workspaces

Metric Brief

context length

Coverage: 1 papers (10%)

1 papers (10%) mention context length.

Examples: Chain of Summaries: Summarization Through Iterative Questioning

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives