Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W49

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 19 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 19 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Scalar. Frequently cited benchmark: GSM8K. 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 Dec 7, 2025.

Papers: 19 Last published: Dec 7, 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

5.3%

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 Time Slice Matters

  • 15.8% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by demonstration data.
  • automatic metrics appears in 36.8% of papers in this hub.
  • GSM8K 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 domain experts, and annotation is commonly scalar scoring; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Stratify by benchmark (GSM8K vs Longmemeval) 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
Cache What Lasts: Token Retention for Memory-Bounded KV Cache in LLMs

Dec 3, 2025

Automatic Metrics MATH 500, GSM8K Cost Not reported
Diffusion Model in Latent Space for Medical Image Segmentation Task

Dec 1, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Mse Not reported
STaRR: Spatial-Temporal Token-Dynamics-Aware Responsive Remasking for Diffusion Language Models

Dec 7, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Conflict-Aware Fusion: Resolving Logic Inertia in Large Language Models via Structured Cognitive Priors

Dec 6, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
ArtistMus: A Globally Diverse, Artist-Centric Benchmark for Retrieval-Augmented Music Question Answering

Dec 5, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Recall Not reported
Randomized Masked Finetuning: An Efficient Way to Mitigate Memorization of PIIs in LLMs

Dec 2, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Perplexity Not reported
Cross-Lingual Interleaving for Speech Language Models

Dec 1, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
Reconstructing KV Caches with Cross-layer Fusion For Enhanced Transformers

Dec 3, 2025

Not reported Not reported Perplexity, Cost Not reported
Think-While-Generating: On-the-Fly Reasoning for Personalized Long-Form Generation

Dec 7, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
AITutor-EvalKit: Exploring the Capabilities of AI Tutors

Dec 3, 2025

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (15.8% 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 (5.3% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (26.3% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

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

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (5.3% 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).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (5.3% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Stratify by benchmark (GSM8K vs Longmemeval) 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 (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 (7)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (3)
  • Cost (2)
  • Dice (1)
  • Iou (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • GSM8K (1)
  • Longmemeval (1)
  • MATH 500 (1)

Quality Controls

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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