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
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描：2026-11-15 05:41 · 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 05:42 — 2026-11-15 05:42（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：2026-11-15 05:41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

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 3 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-15 05:40（北京时间）
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2610.02945

面向AI辅助数学发现的持续图记忆与社区基础设施

Continual Graph Memory and Community Infrastructure for AI-Assisted Mathematical Discovery

Eric Hanchen Jiang, Junyi Zhang, Jinxi Yu, Jiachen Lu, Zhi Zhang, Michael Simon, Justin Baker, Richard Cai 等 30 位作者

AI 速读 基于摘要

作者提出Ansatz研究框架与Ansatze社区平台，用持续图记忆区分模型接受的结论与人工整理探索，并支持数学研究的检查、引导与形式化验证。

cs.AI · cs.CL

arXiv ↗PDF ↗
查看原文摘要

Mathematical discovery requires preserving partial ideas and the evidence supporting their reuse. We present Ansatz, a research harness whose continual graph memory separates model-accepted claims and dependencies from curated exploration, and Ansatze, a community platform for inspecting, guiding and checking this work. On First Proof, Ansatz recorded nine local verifier closures in each of two ten-problem batches; a partial result in the Second Batch also counted as a pass under the study's criterion. These model-assessed outcomes include continued searches and differ from expert validation. Component studies and re-review expose disagreements and their dependency reach. Open-problem investigations produced candidate results, with five Lean formalizations reported. The platform connects problem discovery, research records, manuscript analysis and formal checking while preserving distinct evidence states. Together, these systems support cumulative human-AI research through persistent investigation and inspectable contributions.

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.09061

Does Reasoning Improve Psychological Depth in Large Language Models?

Ruichen Zheng, Yihe Wang, Fabrice Harel-Canada, Sara Khosravi, Zeynep Senahan Yildiz, Amit Sahai, Nanyun Peng

原文摘要

Benchmark gains from reasoning-enhanced large language models encourage the assumption that these models should broadly perform better on complex generative tasks, but this remains underexplored in open-ended, creative domains shaped by nuances of reader experience. We tested this assumption through the lens of psychological depth in short stories. We compared DeepSeek-R1 vs. DeepSeek-V3, our closest available contrast for reasoning-oriented post-training, and GPT-5 vs. GPT-4o, through 60 blinded pairwise evaluations in which seven human annotators and an ensemble LLM-as-a-Judge rated prompt-matched story outputs. Human evaluations showed no universal reasoning advantage: GPT-5 was slightly preferred over GPT-4o (60.0-62.9% across two reasoning-effort settings), whereas DeepSeek-R1 fell behind DeepSeek-V3 (42.9%). Although this pattern was marked by low inter-annotator agreement (Krippendorff's $α= 0.070$), our annotation-quality checks suggested genuine evaluative subjectivity, plausibly reflecting distinct annotator decision schemes rather than annotation failure. In contrast, the LLM-as-a-Judge showed a strong pro-reasoning bias (98.3% of pairs vs. 55.2% of human votes), consistent across its five configurations and partly tracking sentence length. These findings suggest that, at the frontier, reasoning-related quality differences are small enough to be dominated by reader subjectivity, and that LLM-as-a-Judge evaluators can obscure this subjectivity in nuanced creative-generation tasks.

cs.CL

查看论文
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
版本更新 · v4arXiv:2607.07779

From Solvers to Research: Large Language Model-Driven Formal Mathematics at the Research Frontier

Eric Jiang, Xiao Liang, Junyi Zhang, Justin Baker, Zhi Zhang, Yingjia Wan, Yubei Li, Jinxi Yu 等 41 位作者

原文摘要

Large language models have made rapid progress in generating machine-checked proofs for well-defined mathematical problems. Extending this progress to research mathematics requires more than solving isolated theorems. Research involves choosing questions, developing definitions and conjectures, connecting results, and combining formal proofs with expert judgment. This survey examines how LLM-driven systems can support these broader activities. We review formal-mathematics tasks, datasets, and autoformalization, and organize proof-generation methods into three overlapping areas: training strategies, inference-time search and adaptation, and agentic workflows. We then examine benchmark results, selected research projects, and platforms for collaborative mathematical work. A central distinction runs throughout the survey: checking a formal proof does not by itself establish that it captures the intended problem or makes a new mathematical contribution. We therefore distinguish theorem benchmarks, repository tasks, formalization projects, and research claims, and discuss the evidence needed to assess each. Finally, we identify five priorities for progress: better data and evaluation, representations of mathematical relationships, conjecture and concept generation, reliable tool integration, and human--AI collaboration. Together, these perspectives connect advances in proof generation to the practical demands of mathematical research.

cs.CL · cs.AI

查看论文
arXiv ↗PDF ↗