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

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+1已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-08 01:59 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-07 17:43各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-07 02:38 — 2026-11-08 02:38(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:2026-11-08 01:59最近发现新增版本:2026-11-07 17:43库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 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。

17,100 已收录论文14,661 AI 相关4,056 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 2026-11-08 01:57(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2611.02978

CAREFUL-Bench: Effect-Aware, Judge-Free Evaluation of Multi-Turn LLM Function Calling

Alexander Kovalenko, Artem Redchych

原文摘要

The multi-turn checker of the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) checks only the final state of a simulated service, never the calls that produced it. Extra calls cost nothing, no function doc says what a function does, and the scripted user never answers a proposal, so a model that asks before deleting or paying fails the turn; 322 of the 734 reference turns in the base category act destructively without confirmation. We add effect information to BFCL without replacing it. Effect declarations for all 128 functions are inferred by executing each function in BFCL's own simulators and diffing the state; the remaining judgment, which writes are destructive, is made by four annotators, two humans and two language models (Fleiss' kappa = 0.75), and adjudicated. A judge-free replay scorer re-scores any logged BFCL run, reproduces BFCL's results on all 800 reference trajectories, and reports, alongside the official score, unrequested destructive calls, duplicate writes, redundant reads, surplus steps and their token cost. A confirmation-aware protocol adds a deterministic user that answers proposals. On 11 open models the effect-aware score preserves the official ranking (rho = 0.99) but changes the gaps: the leader loses 14.0 points to unrequested destructive calls, and surplus steps account for 2-28% of all input tokens. Effect hints in the function docs produce no measurable change for any of eight models, consistent with their advisory status in the Model Context Protocol. A user that answers recovers up to four points for the models that ask and none for the rest, with every comparison paired on the same conversations. The gains come from clarifying questions rather than requests for permission: of the 712 conversations that require a destructive call, no model completes more than 6 with every such call confirmed, a difference the official score does not record.

cs.AI · cs.SE

新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.35981

Small agents should know what their tools do

Alexander Kovalenko, Artem Redchych

原文摘要

Small open language models can call tools, but they do not reason about what a call does: they delete without asking, repeat writes, re-read state they already hold, and issue one call per turn where a short program would do. We introduce EffectWorld, an executable world of effect-typed tools in which every tool declares its effect, whether it is idempotent, and which resources it reads and writes. These declarations let a replay verifier decide whether a trace is effect-safe without labels or judge models, let an executor run tool programs of several dependent calls in one turn, and let a compiler-style optimizer turn wasteful traces into verified training signal; together they make EffectWorld a benchmark of effect safety and call efficiency. Low-rank adapters trained on this data deliver large gains: on Qwen3-4B, they raise task success from 53% to 99% in distribution, from 52% to 81% on a held-out split with unseen task kinds and distractor tools, and from 74% to 83% on an unseen domain, with about a third of the output tokens. The gains carry over to other model families. On the Berkeley Function-Calling Leaderboard (BFCL), the adapter matches the base model's live accuracy and raises multi-turn accuracy from 21.9 to 26.6, and a recipe with near-miss declines lifts the BFCL average above the base model's while matching its irrelevance detection. Along the way we uncover and fix a pitfall that in-domain evaluation alone would miss: refusal templates in widely used public tool-use corpora teach a small model not to call tools, cutting BFCL non-live accuracy from 88.0 to 31.4, and filtering them restores 84.8. We also find that positive examples, not negative ones, carry the learning: suppression and preference objectives on the verified negatives add nothing over an SFT-only control, while targeted positives move exactly the behaviour they show.

cs.SE