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
+93新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-16 01:34 · 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 2026-11-15 03:37 — 2026-11-16 03:37(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:2026-11-16 01:34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 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-16 01:33(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.13400

Orthographic depth at two scales, with English also matched for lexicon size

Adam Y. Shavit

原文摘要

A reader can struggle to read in only one of their languages, and one proposed reason is how predictably spelling maps to sound. We measure that predictability as conditional entropy, the pronunciation uncertainty left once the spelling is seen, at two grain sizes (unit sizes): the alignment unit, an aligned spelling-sound chunk, and the syllable, bounded in the pronunciation. We analyse word lists in twelve alphabetic orthographies and report five in full, with English pronunciations from a dictionary and the rest from the synthesizer eSpeak-ng, length marks removed. Among the five, English has the most uncertainty and Finnish the least at both grains. Across all twelve, Portuguese and Danish exceed English per alignment unit, and German and Italian order differently by grain and transcription. These orders hold when English is transcribed by eSpeak-ng with u allowed to spell /j/ plus a vowel. Uncertainty per unit has no shared direction as units grow: it falls in Spanish and, less securely, German, is level in Finnish, depends on transcription in Italian and on the word list in English, and rises in Norwegian and Swedish. Summed uncertainty per word falls in all twelve, but that score is handed the pronunciation's boundaries and mixes context with in-sample memorisation, so it is no evidence of what a reader computes. An exact identity states when discarded spelling boundaries could reverse that fall. A uniform 20,000-word English sample holds 35% of the dictionary's syllable spellings and has syllable entropy 0.098 bits lower, so lexicons must be matched in size. In an exploratory check over eleven languages, syllable-scale entropy tracked first-year reading accuracy (rho = -0.74, falling to -0.25 if English is given the lowest entropy instead), without separating the syllable scale from the alignment unit. These estimates describe sampled writing systems, not readers.

stat.AP · cs.CL · q-bio.NC · stat.ME

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.07965

Reversible Dynamics, Asymmetric Actions: Parking as a Trajectory-Level Affordance

Adam Y. Shavit

原文摘要

Drivers are often told to back into a tight parking space, not drive in nose first. The advice looks paradoxical, because a slow car is dynamically reversible: reverse its speed and replay the steering backward, and it retraces a feasible path. Played backward, though, reverse-in shows a car driving forward out of the space. Reverse-in and forward-in are different tasks: they share a start position but end facing opposite ways. We separate three clearances between car and obstacles. Static fit $F$ is the clearance the parked car keeps at its best acceptable destination pose. Eventual access $A_\infty$ is the clearance it can keep all the way there with unlimited corrections. Resource-bounded access $A_K$ is the clearance that survives a budget of $K$ reversals, switches between forward and reverse. They satisfy $F\ge A_\infty\ge A_K$. In one fully specified scene (one car, bay, aisle and start), a certified argument proves $A_\infty=F=0.5000$ m for both tasks. In this scene, all certified forward/reverse asymmetry therefore arises at finite $K$: it lies in how many corrections each task needs, not in the clearance either can eventually keep. With one reversal, an explicit path gives reverse-in at least $0.4410$ m clearance. A certified reachability argument caps forward-in's one-reversal clearance at $d_0<0.1720002$ m. With two reversals, forward-in gets at least $0.2833$ m. To keep a clearance strictly above any $d$ with $d_0\le d<0.2833$ m, reverse-in thus needs exactly one reversal and forward-in exactly two when both tasks move forward first. If both move in reverse first, the counts are two and three. The contrast depends on the start position (Section 4.15). Proposed experiments test whether observers distinguish fit, eventual access and budgeted access. They compare these with simpler cues, such as how the turning body sweeps, and learned manoeuvre labels.

q-bio.NC · cs.RO · math.OC