Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Daily Archive

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2026-W07

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 47 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: BrowseComp. 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 Feb 15, 2026.

Papers: 47 Last published: Feb 15, 2026 Global RSS

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 47 papers for HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2026-W07. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on BrowseComp, Retrieval and metric focus on accuracy, cost. 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

  • BrowseComp appears in 4.3% of hub papers (2/47); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Retrieval appears in 4.3% of hub papers (2/47); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 23.4% of hub papers (11/47); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 6.4% of hub papers (3/47); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (23.4% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (10.6% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.4% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (48.9% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (12.8% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (19.1% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (23.4% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (10.6% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (23.4% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (48.9% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (12.8% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (19.1% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Does Socialization Emerge in AI Agent Society? A Case Study of Moltbook

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

  2. 2. MCPShield: A Security Cognition Layer for Adaptive Trust Calibration in Model Context Protocol Agents

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

  3. 3. Investigation for Relative Voice Impression Estimation

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

  4. 4. Annotation-Efficient Vision-Language Model Adaptation to the Polish Language Using the LLaVA Framework

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

  5. 5. ADAB: Arabic Dataset for Automated Politeness Benchmarking -- A Large-Scale Resource for Computational Sociopragmatics

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

  6. 6. Index Light, Reason Deep: Deferred Visual Ingestion for Visual-Dense Document Question Answering

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. Context Shapes LLMs Retrieval-Augmented Fact-Checking Effectiveness

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam

    Adds automatic metrics with expert verification for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 10.6% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (12.8% 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=0, left_only=4, right_only=35

0 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=2, left_only=33, right_only=8

2 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs human_eval

both=0, left_only=10, right_only=4

0 papers use both Simulation Env and Human Eval.

Benchmark Brief

APPS

Coverage: 1 papers (2.1%)

1 papers (2.1%) mention APPS.

Examples: UI-Venus-1.5 Technical Report

Papers Published On This Date

Recent Daily Archives