Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2025-W50

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 9 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 8, 2026). 9 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Common metric signal: auc-pr. 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 11, 2025.

Papers: 9 Last published: Dec 11, 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%

9 / 9 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

0.0%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

44.4%

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

  • 11.1% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 33.3% of papers in this hub.
  • long-horizon tasks appears in 11.1% of papers, indicating agentic evaluation demand.

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 trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both auc-pr and cost.

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
KD-OCT: Efficient Knowledge Distillation for Clinical-Grade Retinal OCT Classification

Dec 9, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Coherence Not reported
QSTN: A Modular Framework for Robust Questionnaire Inference with Large Language Models

Dec 9, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Not reported
Aerial Vision-Language Navigation with a Unified Framework for Spatial, Temporal and Embodied Reasoning

Dec 9, 2025

Simulation Env Not reported Cost Not reported
Group Representational Position Encoding

Dec 8, 2025

Automatic Metrics Not reported Cost Not reported
Explanation Bias is a Product: Revealing the Hidden Lexical and Position Preferences in Post-Hoc Feature Attribution

Dec 11, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Interpreto: An Explainability Library for Transformers

Dec 10, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
GUMBridge: a Corpus for Varieties of Bridging Anaphora

Dec 8, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
What Triggers my Model? Contrastive Explanations Inform Gender Choices by Translation Models

Dec 9, 2025

Not reported Not reported Not reported Not reported
Near--Real-Time Conflict-Related Fire Detection in Sudan Using Unsupervised Deep Learning

Dec 8, 2025

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

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.1% 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 (0% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (33.3% 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 (11.1% 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 (11.1% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both auc-pr 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 (3)
  • Simulation Env (1)

Top Metrics

  • Auc Pr (1)
  • Cost (1)
  • F1 (1)
  • Precision (1)

Top Benchmarks

Quality Controls

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

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