Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Archive Slice

HFEPX Weekly Archive: 2026-W09

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 526 papers are grouped in this daily page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 12, 2026). 526 papers are grouped in this daily page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Trajectory. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: DROP. 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 Mar 1, 2026.

Papers: 526 Last published: Mar 1, 2026 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: High .

Analysis blocks are computed from the loaded sample (60 of 526 papers).

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

60 / 60 papers are not low-signal flagged.

Benchmark Anchors

5.0%

Papers with benchmark/dataset mentions in extraction output.

Metric Anchors

18.3%

Papers with reported metric mentions in extraction output.

  • 3 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.

Get this digest every Friday →

Subscribe

Why This Time Slice Matters

  • 11.4% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by pairwise preferences.
  • automatic metrics appears in 30.2% of papers in this hub.
  • DROP is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways For This Period

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (1.7% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly trajectory-level annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.

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
KVSlimmer: Theoretical Insights and Practical Optimizations for Asymmetric KV Merging

Mar 1, 2026

Automatic Metrics LongBench Latency Not reported
DARE-bench: Evaluating Modeling and Instruction Fidelity of LLMs in Data Science

Feb 27, 2026

Automatic Metrics Dare Bench Accuracy Not reported
HypeLoRA: Hyper-Network-Generated LoRA Adapters for Calibrated Language Model Fine-Tuning

Mar 1, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Calibration error Calibration
Conformal Prediction for Risk-Controlled Medical Entity Extraction Across Clinical Domains

Mar 1, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, F1 Calibration
Confusion-Aware Rubric Optimization for LLM-based Automated Grading

Feb 28, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy, Precision Not reported
Transformers Remember First, Forget Last: Dual-Process Interference in LLMs

Feb 27, 2026

Not reported Consolidation Retrieval Cost Not reported
Learn Hard Problems During RL with Reference Guided Fine-tuning

Mar 1, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Accuracy Not reported
SkillCraft: Can LLM Agents Learn to Use Tools Skillfully?

Feb 28, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported Success rate Not reported
BLUFF: Benchmarking the Detection of False and Synthetic Content across 58 Low-Resource Languages

Feb 28, 2026

Automatic Metrics Not reported F1 Not reported
When Metrics Disagree: Automatic Similarity vs. LLM-as-a-Judge for Clinical Dialogue Evaluation

Feb 27, 2026

Llm As Judge, Automatic Metrics Not reported Precision, Bleu Not reported
Researcher Workflow (Detailed)

Checklist

  • Gap: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is a replication risk (11.4% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (3% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (7.8% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.5% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is a replication risk (8.9% vs 35% target).

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.7% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.

Known Gaps

  • Only 3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.9% coverage).
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (9.7% coverage).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (DROP vs SWE-bench) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and cost.

Recommended Queries

Known Limitations
  • Only 3% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (8.9% 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 (159)
  • Simulation Env (25)
  • Human Eval (8)
  • Llm As Judge (8)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (57)
  • Cost (25)
  • Precision (14)
  • F1 (11)

Top Benchmarks

  • DROP (4)
  • SWE Bench (4)
  • WebShop (3)
  • ALFWorld (2)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (9)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (5)
  • Adjudication (2)
  • Gold Questions (1)

Papers In This Archive Slice

Recent Archive Slices

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.