Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Law Or Multilingual Papers

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). 139 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Simulation Env. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Pairwise. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. 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 Feb 26, 2026.

Papers: 139 Last published: Feb 26, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
LawMultilingual

Research Narrative

Grounded narrative Model: deterministic-grounded Source: persisted

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Feb 27, 2026). This page tracks 139 papers for Law Or Multilingual Papers. Dominant protocol signals include automatic metrics, simulation environments, human evaluation, with frequent benchmark focus on Retrieval, DROP 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

  • Retrieval appears in 7.9% of hub papers (11/139); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • DROP appears in 2.2% of hub papers (3/139); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 20.1% of hub papers (28/139); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • cost is reported in 8.6% of hub papers (12/139); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.

Researcher Checklist

  • Close gap on Papers with explicit human feedback. Coverage is a replication risk (12.9% vs 45% target).
  • Close gap on Papers reporting quality controls. Coverage is a replication risk (2.9% vs 30% target).
  • Tighten coverage on Papers naming benchmarks/datasets. Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.6% vs 35% target).
  • Maintain strength on Papers naming evaluation metrics. Coverage is strong (39.6% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known rater population. Coverage is a replication risk (13.7% vs 35% target).
  • Close gap on Papers with known annotation unit. Coverage is a replication risk (6.5% vs 35% target).

Papers with explicit human feedback

Coverage is a replication risk (12.9% vs 45% target).

Papers reporting quality controls

Coverage is a replication risk (2.9% vs 30% target).

Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

Coverage is usable but incomplete (21.6% vs 35% target).

Papers naming evaluation metrics

Coverage is strong (39.6% vs 35% target).

Papers with known rater population

Coverage is a replication risk (13.7% vs 35% target).

Papers with known annotation unit

Coverage is a replication risk (6.5% vs 35% target).

Suggested Reading Order

  1. 1. Scale Can't Overcome Pragmatics: The Impact of Reporting Bias on Vision-Language Reasoning

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

  2. 2. Frequency-Ordered Tokenization for Better Text Compression

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

  3. 3. Effective QA-driven Annotation of Predicate-Argument Relations Across Languages

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

  4. 4. Extending Czech Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis with Opinion Terms: Dataset and LLM Benchmarks

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  5. 5. Towards Faithful Industrial RAG: A Reinforced Co-adaptation Framework for Advertising QA

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  6. 6. Bridging Latent Reasoning and Target-Language Generation via Retrieval-Transition Heads

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  7. 7. SAFARI: A Community-Engaged Approach and Dataset of Stereotype Resources in the Sub-Saharan African Context

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

  8. 8. Recovered in Translation: Efficient Pipeline for Automated Translation of Benchmarks and Datasets

    Adds automatic metrics for broader coverage within this hub.

Known Limitations

  • Only 2.9% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Rater population is under-specified (13.7% 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=2, left_only=7, right_only=122

2 papers use both Human Eval and Automatic Metrics.

automatic_metrics vs simulation_env

both=3, left_only=121, right_only=8

3 papers use both Automatic Metrics and Simulation Env.

simulation_env vs human_eval

both=0, left_only=11, right_only=9

0 papers use both Simulation Env and Human Eval.

Top Papers

Related Hubs