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

+4198新增论文
+3311其中 AI 相关
+108已有论文修订
+122新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-05 00:46 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 01:41各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-04 01:42 — 2026-11-05 01:42(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:2026-11-05 00:46最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 01:41库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-04 08:00

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。

12,875 已收录论文10,986 AI 相关3,088 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

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 3 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-05 00:44(北京时间)
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1910ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

Embodied-Reasoner: Synergizing Visual Search, Reasoning, and Action for Embodied Interactive Tasks

Wenqi Zhang Zhejiang University, Mengna Wang, Gangao Liu, Huixin Xu, Yiwei Jiang Syracuse University, Yongliang Shen Zhejiang University, Guiyang Hou, Zhe Zheng Zhejiang University 等 14 位作者

Recent advances in reasoning models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities on mathematical and coding tasks. However, their effectiveness in embodied domains, where the agent must continuously interact with environments and process observation-action interleaved trajectories, remains largely unexplored. We present Embodied-Reasoner, a reasoning model for interactive embodied tasks. Unlike mathematical reasoning that relies primarily on logical deduction, embodied scenarios demand spatial understanding, temporal reasoning, and ongoing self-reflection based on interaction history. To address these challenges, we synthesize 9.3k coherent Observation-Thought-Action trajectories containing 64k ego-centric images and 90k diverse reasoning processes (analysis, spatial reasoning, reflection, planning, and verification). We develop a three-stage training recipe that progressively enhances the model’s capabilities through imitation learning, rejection sampling tuning on self-exploration trajectories, and reflection tuning. The evaluation shows that our model significantly outperforms advanced visual reasoning models, e.g., exceeds OpenAI o1, o3-mini, and Claude-3.7 by +9%, 24%, and +13%. Analysis reveals that our model exhibits fewer repeated searches and logical inconsistencies, with particular advantages in complex long-horizon tasks. Real-world testing further validates the effectiveness of our approach.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL

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

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1924ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

Outcome Accuracy is Not Enough: Aligning the Reasoning Process of Reward Models

Binghai Wang, Yantao Liu Qwen Team, Alibaba Group, Yuxuan Liu Qwen Team, Alibaba Group, Tianyi Tang Alibaba Group, Shenzhi Wang Alibaba Group, Chang Gao Alibaba Group, Chujie Zheng Alibaba Group, Yichang Zhang Alibaba Group 等 16 位作者

Generative Reward Models (GenRMs) and LLM-as-a-Judge exhibit deceptive alignment by producing correct judgments for incorrect reasons, as they are trained and evaluated to prioritize Outcome Accuracy, which undermines their ability to generalize during RLHF. We introduce Rationale Consistency, a fine-grained metric that quantifies the alignment between the model’s reasoning process and human judgment. Our evaluation of frontier models reveals that rationale consistency effectively discriminates among state-of-the-art models and detects deceptive alignment, while outcome accuracy falls short in both respects. To mitigate this gap, we introduce a hybrid signal that combines rationale consistency with outcome accuracy for GenRM training. Our training method achieves state-of-the-art performance on RM-Bench (87.1%) and JudgeBench (82%), surpassing outcome-only baselines by an average of 5%. Using RM during RLHF, our method effectively improves performance as demonstrated on Arena Hard v2, notably yielding a 7% improvement in creative writing tasks. Further analysis confirms that our method escapes the deceptive alignment trap, effectively reversing the decline in rationale consistency observed in outcome-only training.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL

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

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗
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

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.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL

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

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗