Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

T-FIX: Text-Based Explanations with Features Interpretable to eXperts

Shreya Havaldar, Weiqiu You, Chaehyeon Kim, Anton Xue +11 more

Published

Nov 6, 2025

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

40/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

45% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Domain Experts

Signals refreshed

May 17, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Coding Expert Verification

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human feedback signal
Detected
From extracted signals
Evaluation signal
Weak or implicit
Validate from full paper
Usefulness for eval research
40/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

As LLMs are deployed in knowledge-intensive settings (e.g., surgery, astronomy, therapy), users are often domain experts who expect not just answers, but explanations that mirror professional reasoning. Yet evaluating whether an LLM "thinks like an expert" remains difficult: existing approaches rely on per-example expert annotation, making them costly, hard to scale, and tied to a single notion of correct reasoning within each domain. To address this gap, we introduce T-FIX, a unified evaluation framework that operationalizes expert alignment as a desired attribute of LLM-generated explanations. T-FIX spans seven scientific tasks across three domains, with each task evaluated against expert-defined criteria that capture domain-grounded reasoning rather than generic explanation quality. Our framework enables automatic, personalizable evaluation of expert alignment that generalizes to unseen explanations without ongoing expert involvement. Code is available at https://github.com/BrachioLab/FIX-2/.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

partial

Expert Verification

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"As LLMs are deployed in knowledge-intensive settings (e.g., surgery, astronomy, therapy), users are often domain experts who expect not just answers, but explanations that mirror professional reasoning."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"As LLMs are deployed in knowledge-intensive settings (e.g., surgery, astronomy, therapy), users are often domain experts who expect not just answers, but explanations that mirror professional reasoning."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"As LLMs are deployed in knowledge-intensive settings (e.g., surgery, astronomy, therapy), users are often domain experts who expect not just answers, but explanations that mirror professional reasoning."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"As LLMs are deployed in knowledge-intensive settings (e.g., surgery, astronomy, therapy), users are often domain experts who expect not just answers, but explanations that mirror professional reasoning."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"As LLMs are deployed in knowledge-intensive settings (e.g., surgery, astronomy, therapy), users are often domain experts who expect not just answers, but explanations that mirror professional reasoning."

Rater Population

partial

Domain Experts

Helpful for staffing comparability.

"As LLMs are deployed in knowledge-intensive settings (e.g., surgery, astronomy, therapy), users are often domain experts who expect not just answers, but explanations that mirror professional reasoning."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
Yes
Feedback types
Expert Verification
Rater population
Domain Experts
Expertise required
Coding
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
None
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

As LLMs are deployed in knowledge-intensive settings (e.g., surgery, astronomy, therapy), users are often domain experts who expect not just answers, but explanations that mirror professional reasoning.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • As LLMs are deployed in knowledge-intensive settings (e.g., surgery, astronomy, therapy), users are often domain experts who expect not just answers, but explanations that mirror professional reasoning.
  • Yet evaluating whether an LLM "thinks like an expert" remains difficult: existing approaches rely on per-example expert annotation, making them costly, hard to scale, and tied to a single notion of correct reasoning within each domain.
  • To address this gap, we introduce T-FIX, a unified evaluation framework that operationalizes expert alignment as a desired attribute of LLM-generated explanations.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Expert verification evaluation

Contribution summary

  • To address this gap, we introduce T-FIX, a unified evaluation framework that operationalizes expert alignment as a desired attribute of LLM-generated explanations.
  • Our framework enables automatic, personalizable evaluation of expert alignment that generalizes to unseen explanations without ongoing expert involvement.

Why it matters for eval

  • To address this gap, we introduce T-FIX, a unified evaluation framework that operationalizes expert alignment as a desired attribute of LLM-generated explanations.
  • Our framework enables automatic, personalizable evaluation of expert alignment that generalizes to unseen explanations without ongoing expert involvement.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Expert Verification

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.