跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科，以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词，把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1072新增论文
+845其中 AI 相关
+94已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描：2026-11-10 07:06 · 全站最近入库：2026-11-09 13:22各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-09 07:29 — 2026-11-10 07:29（北京时间） · 点击数字查看对应简报；AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查：2026-11-10 07:06最近发现新增版本：2026-11-09 13:22库内论文最新更新时间：2026-11-07 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常；新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

18,172 已收录论文15,506 AI 相关4,527 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

研究日报 / 周报 →按信源浏览 →

时间范围跟随排序：版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常，查看状态 →

找到 5 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-10 07:04（北京时间）
版本更新 · v4arXiv:2605.25240

JudgmentBench: Comparing Rubric and Preference Evaluation for Quality Assessment

Russell Yang, Ruishi Chen, Pierce Kelaita, Riya Ranjan, Sibo Ma, Charles Dickens, Matthew Guillod, Megan Ma 等 9 位作者

原文摘要

Two methodologies dominate current practices of benchmarking: rubric-based scoring evaluates items against predefined criteria, whereas comparative judgment elicits pairwise preferences between outputs. Although both methodologies are widely used, the choice between them is rarely justified. We release JudgmentBench, a benchmark of 30 real-world legal tasks, paired with 1,539 rubric scores and 1,530 pairwise preference judgments collected from practicing attorneys--including at major U.S. law firms--with substantial experience. The annotations constitute the first publicly available dataset in a high-expertise domain in which both supervision signals are elicited from the same pool of experts on the same tasks. Using LLM-generated outputs at three constructed quality levels, we provide an initial empirical comparison: comparative judgments recover the intended quality ordering substantially better than rubrics under both a per-task rank-correlation metric (mean Spearman's rank correlation of 0.908 vs. 0.150, estimated difference = 0.758 [0.494, 1.021]) and a per-judgment pairwise win-rate metric (0.669 vs. 0.542, estimated difference = 0.127 [0.067, 0.186]), while requiring less than half the annotation time. The patterns hold for human annotators and LLM autograders. Beyond this initial comparison, the paired structure of the dataset supports a broader research agenda on how expert judgment should be elicited, aggregated, and used as supervision in domains without verifiable ground truth.

cs.CL · cs.AI · cs.CY

查看论文
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.05804

Matching the Training-Time Weight Rule in Inference-Time Expert Deactivation

Hao Cheng, Zhiyu Yang, Bo Ma, Hanzhang Jia

原文摘要

Expert deactivation at inference time changes both token routing and expert weights, and its effect on performance depends on how these changes are implemented. We compare removal, freezing, remaining-expert renormalization, and unnormalized re-routing on identical disabled sets across five instruction-tuned checkpoints from four model families, with a base OLMoE checkpoint as an additional comparison. We develop a weight-sum model that relates the loss of expert contributions and changes in branch scale to the weight rule used during training. With half of the experts deactivated according to activation-based rankings, remaining-expert renormalization yields the highest perplexity in models trained with raw router probabilities, whereas unnormalized re-routing yields the highest perplexity in models trained with normalized weights. Perplexity ranges from 1.4 to 73 times the intact baseline when the training rule is retained, and from 14 to 28,740 times the baseline under a rule mismatch. Task outcomes vary across evaluation types: on OLMoE, GSM8K strict-match accuracy falls to zero under all four implementations. Extending the model to changes in the number of active experts yields a further prediction, supported by the OLMoE experiments: the perplexity penalty from additional renormalization increases as fewer experts are activated.

cs.CL · cs.AI

查看论文
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.29ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

IntrAgent: An LLM Agent for Content-Grounded Information Retrieval through Literature Review

Fengbo Ma University of Georgia, Zixin Rao, Xiaoting Li University of Georgia, Zhetao Chen, Hongyue Sun University of Georgia, Yiping Zhao University of Georgia, Xianyan Chen University of Georgia, Zhen Xiang University of Georgia

原文摘要

Scientific research relies on accurate information retrieval from literature to support analytical decisions.In this work, we introduce a new task, INformation reTRieval through literAture reVIEW (IntraView), which aims to automate fine-grained information retrieval faithfully grounded in the provided content in response to research-driven queries, and propose IntrAgent, an LLM-based agent that addresses this challenging task.In particular, IntrAgent is designed to mimic human behaviors when reading literature for information retrieval - identifying relevant sections and then iteratively extracting key details to refine the retrieved information.It follows a two-stage pipeline: a Section Ranking stage that prioritizes relevant literature sections through structural-knowledge-enabled reasoning, and an Iterative Reading stage that continuously extracts details and synthesizes them into concise, contextually grounded answers.To support rigorous evaluation, we introduce IntraBench, a new benchmark consisting of 315 test instances built from expert-authored questions paired with literature spanning five STEM domains.Across seven backbone LLMs, IntrAgent achieves on average 13.2% higher cross-domain accuracy than state-of-the-art RAG and research-agent baselines.

cs.CL

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表

首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.458ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

PLAWBENCH: A Rubric-Based Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs in Real-World Legal Practice

Yuzhen Shi Alibaba Group, Huanghai Liu Tsinghua University, Tsinghua University, Yiran HU, Song Gaojie, Xu Xinran, Yubo Ma, Tianyi Tang Alibaba Group, Li Zhang 等 30 位作者

原文摘要

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to legal domain-specific tasks, evaluating their ability to perform legal work in real-world settings has become essential. However, existing legal benchmarks rely on simplified and highly standardized tasks, failing to capture the ambiguity, complexity, and reasoning demands of real legal practice. Moreover, prior evaluations often adopt coarse, single-dimensional metrics and do not explicitly assess fine-grained legal reasoning. To address these limitations, we introduce PLawBench, a Practical Law Benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs in realistic legal practice scenarios. Grounded in real-world legal workflows, PLawBench models the core processes of legal practitioners through three task categories: public legal consultation, practical case analysis, and legal document generation. These tasks assess a model’s ability to identify legal issues and key facts, perform structured legal reasoning, and generate legally coherent documents. PLawBench comprises 850 questions across 13 practical legal scenarios, with each question accompanied by expert-designed evaluation rubrics, resulting in approximately 12,500 rubric items for fine-grained assessment. Using an LLM-based evaluator aligned with human expert judgments, we evaluate 10 state-of-the-art LLMs. Experimental results show that none achieves strong performance on PLawBench, revealing substantial limitations in the fine-grained legal reasoning capabilities of current LLMs and highlighting important directions for future evaluation and development of legal LLMs. Data is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/PLawbench-B524/.

cs.CL

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表

首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.984ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

MTR-Bench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Multi-Turn Reasoning Evaluation

Xiaoyuan Li, Keqin Bao, Yubo Ma, Moxin Li, Wenjie Wang University of Science and Technology of China, Rui Men Alibaba Group, Yichang Zhang Alibaba Group, Fuli Feng University of Science and Technology of China 等 9 位作者

原文摘要

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising results in complex reasoning tasks. However, current evaluations predominantly focus on single-turn reasoning scenarios, leaving interactive tasks largely unexplored. We attribute it to the absence of comprehensive datasets and scalable automatic evaluation protocols. To fill these gaps, we present MTR-Bench for LLMs’ Multi-Turn Reasoning evaluation. Comprising 4 classes, 40 tasks and 3600 instances, MTR-Bench covers diverse reasoning capabilities, fine-grained difficulty granularity, and necessitates multi-turn interactions with the environments. Moreover, MTR-Bench features fully-automated framework spanning both dataset constructions and model evaluations, which enables scalable assessment without human interventions. Extensive experiments reveal that even the cutting-edge reasoning models fall short of multi-turn, interactive reasoning tasks. And the further analysis upon these results brings valuable insights for future research in interactive AI systems.

cs.CL

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表