跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-15 18:02 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-14 18:14 — 2026-11-15 18:14(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:2026-11-15 18:02最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 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。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,729 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 2026-11-15 18:01(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.10536

In Search of Lost Time: Temporal Competence in Large Language Models

Ryan Liu, David Lee, Icey Siyi Ai, Marwa Abdulhai, Rachit Dubey, Thomas L. Griffiths

原文摘要

Today's large language models (LLMs) increasingly interact with time: AI agents schedule tasks, coordinate with people and other AI systems, and even decide how long to think. Yet LLMs only ever encounter time secondhand---in descriptions rather than experience. Does this hinder their reasoning and decisions that involve time? Our paper traces this question from a model's knowledge to its actions through four successive evaluations. We find that models know the rules of time, which can be read, but struggle to predict durations, which must be lived; while they are highly accurate (92.0-97.5\%) on a collection of questions built from the theorems of various time-related literatures, they underestimate their own completion times by up to 99.5\% and fail to identify which tasks will take them longer to run. And while they are better at estimating durations of human tasks, their duration judgments change based on how an event is worded, magnifying similar human biases by up to 1.3$\times$. Moving from estimation to action, we find that some LLMs disregard time costs completely when answering user queries, ignoring a 1,200-fold increase in wait time entirely. Together, our experiments reveal new challenges posed to LLMs as they navigate a dimension they cannot directly perceive, and highlight how their blind spots can even be simple cognitive abilities that humans take for granted.

cs.AI · cs.CL · cs.LG

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.10046

Topological Deep Learning Challenge 2026: Bridging the Gap

Guillermo Bernárdez, Lev Telyatnikov, Mathilde Papillon, Marco Montagna, Louisa Cornelis, Louis Van Langendonck, Antonio Purificato, Bruno Neri 等 71 位作者

原文摘要

This paper describes the 2026 edition of the Topological Deep Learning Challenge: Bridging the Gap, hosted at the second Topology, Algebra, and Geometry in Data Science (TAG-DS) Conference. Where previous editions grew the modelling and data ecosystem of Topological Deep Learning (TDL), this edition set out to place Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) and Topological Neural Networks (TNNs) side by side under a single evaluation pipeline. Participants implemented recent state-of-the-art architectures in TopoBench, with Track 1 covering GNNs and Track 2 covering TNNs. They evaluated these implementations on shared synthetic benchmarks generated with GraphUniverse, which independently controls homophily, average degree and degree-distribution heaviness. The challenge yielded 68 qualifying submissions from 34 teams, spanning the graph, simplicial, cellular, hypergraph and combinatorial domains. For the first time, submissions were also tracked on a public leaderboard, which we summarize and analyze here. Our analysis finds that the differences between the submitted tracks are strongly task-dependent: the mean accuracy gap is modest on community detection, while on triangle counting the Track 1 mean error is 1.85 times the Track 2 mean. Several structurally informed GNNs also outperform the Track 2 mean on triangle counting.

cs.LG · cs.AI

版本更新 · v5arXiv:2604.03614

One-Shot Localisation of the Global Minimum of a Noisy One-Dimensional Function: A Controlled Comparison of an Iterative Neural Minimizer, Set Transformers and Classical Estimators

Qusay Muzaffar, David Levin, Michael Werman

原文摘要

We study passive global optimisation: from twenty noisy samples of an unknown one-dimensional function, with no further queries, estimate where its global minimum lies. We build a benchmark and a self-checking harness and use them for a controlled comparison. The Neural Function Minimizer (NFM), which we introduce, moves a position across the domain for fifteen steps and re-reads the samples from it at every step; a same-size Set Transformer answers in one pass. In a 2x2 design each has one output head or an added mixture head, with the same data and inputs and three seeds each. Within the training families the two are tied on location error, and the mixture loss lowers it by about 0.45 points of the domain in both. The NFM's answers have lower regret, by 2.90 and 3.12 points of the range with one and two heads (significant after correction, and again on a block of fresh cases), mainly because its right-basin answers lie closer to the floor; a Set Transformer looped to the NFM's computation does not reproduce this within the training families, though it has the lower error on unseen functions (exploratory). The NFM also differs from the Set Transformers in encoder, local read, activation, losses and training time. At near-tied minima the form of the answer decides: point answers hedge in about a quarter of exact ties, mixture modes almost never, mixture means in more than 80%. Gaussian-process estimators, with no training, have the lowest regret and are the most accurate on unseen functions. We will release the benchmark, the models and the harness.

cs.LG · cs.AI