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。

采集已暂停
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
+0新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:等待完成 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-02 00:39各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-03 18:16 — 2026-11-04 18:16(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:尚未完成最近发现新增版本:2026-11-02 00:39库内论文最新更新时间:2026-10-30 01:59

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。

8,677 已收录论文7,675 AI 相关1,866 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。

找到 4 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序等待首次采集
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2609.11234

NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs' Capability in Paper Novelty Assessment

Guoqiang Zhang, Kexin Tan, Ming Zhang, Li Ju, Wenqing Jing, Zhonghan Yue, Jiayi Chen, Shiqiang Wu 等 15 位作者

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences, yet novelty remains a persistent weak point. Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score, making it difficult to diagnose which dimension a model misjudges or whether its evidence is faithful. We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis. The benchmark contains 619 paper pairs and 50 multi-paper sets, drawn from two expert sources: ICLR reviewer overlap claims and survey co-citations. Instances are independently labeled along three dimensions: task, problem, and method, capturing application goals, technical challenges, and solution approaches. We propose a cascading diagnostic pipeline that verifies per-dimension correctness, evidence grounding, and logical support. Evaluation of 18 LLMs shows hallucination rates ranging from 0% to 39% across dimensions, and among non-hallucinated correct-positive judgments, over 70% cite evidence fails to logically support the stated reason. The best-performing model, GPT-5.5, achieves 43-72% Verified F1 across dimensions, while most models retain less than half of their raw F1 after faithfulness verification. These results suggest that current LLMs remain far from reliable scientific novelty assessment, particularly when correctness is conditioned on faithful evidence grounding.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.AI
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2609.35290

EvoIn: Bridging Evolution and Internalization for Agent Fine-Tuning

Shihan Dou, Shaofan Liu, Zhonghang Lu, Jiahang Lin, Shichun Liu, Binghai Wang, Jiajie Jin, Guanting Dong 等 11 位作者

Recent work has explored improving agents by jointly evolving their harnesses and models, but often takes a ''potpourri'' approach that bundles together new tools, new decision-making procedures, and model adaptation to the evolved harness under a single notion of agent improvement. In this paper, we instead investigate how agents can improve their decision-making procedures. In particular, we propose EvoIn, an agent fine-tuning framework that bridges evolution and internalization. EvoIn first analyzes agent execution traces to evolve and validate new decision-making procedures by temporarily instantiating them in the harness. The validated procedures guide the agent to generate improved reasoning traces. These traces are then rewritten into self-contained reasoning traces, removing explicit references to harness instructions while expressing the induced decision logic as the model's own reasoning. Finally, EvoIn fine-tunes the model on the rewritten traces, internalizing these procedures so that the improved decision-making persists without the evolved harness at inference time. We evaluate EvoIn on diverse benchmarks and find that it consistently enables agents to learn stronger decision-making procedures, raising the pass rate by 10.9 points in-domain and by 9.2 points out-of-domain. Results further show that the internalized decision procedures generalize to unseen tasks. Case studies show that agents can learn to decide how to solve a task before solving it, for example by checking a document's length to choose between reading it in full and searching it. EvoIn is also broadly applicable, showing consistent improvements on another model family.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.AI · cs.CL
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1839ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

DARM: Distribution-Aware Reward Modeling by Alleviating Biases from Low Preference-Context Dependency Data

Shaofan Liu, Guoqiang Zhang, Shihan Dou, Huiyuan Zheng, Yiming Zhou Fudan University, Junjie Ye, Shaowen Wang, Shichun Liu 等 12 位作者

Reward models (RMs) are the surrogate objectives in reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), and their scores directly steer policy optimization. We show that standard RM training is vulnerable in data subsets where response quality depends only weakly on the context: such instances encourage the RM to ignore the context, leading to context neglect and degraded accuracy. To address this failure mode, we propose Distribution-Aware Reward Modeling (DARM), which augments the RM objective with a conditional mutual information regularizer that maximizes context and the predicted reward conditioned on the response. By explicitly preserving the sensitivity of reward signals to the prompting context, DARM reduces over-reliance on response-only features and improves robustness to contextual variation. Extensive experiments across in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings show that DARM trained RMs deliver more accurate and consistent scoring than strong baselines. We further evaluate its downstream impact in RLHF, where DARM produce better aligned policies. We also demonstrate the necessity of each DARM design component and the impact of key parameters on performance through ablation experiments.

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 ↗
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2605.04665Google Research

改写引发的输出模式崩溃:当大语言模型在语义等价输入下脱离角色

Paraphrase-Induced Output-Mode Collapse: When LLMs Break Character Under Semantically Equivalent Inputs

Aofan Liu, Jingxiang Meng

AI 速览:作者报告,语义等价但措辞不同的提示改写会让大语言模型放弃原本要求的封闭式输出格式,转而输出对话式散文,从而在精确匹配评测中被误判。

When the substantive content of a request is rewritten, do large language models still answer in the format the original task asked for? We find that they often do not, even at temperature zero. On a 150-query evaluation over five compact 2025-era LLMs and four task types, we observe a systematic failure mode we call prompt-variant output-mode collapse: when a closed-form prompt asks for a bare label or a single choice token, content-preserving prompt variants can push the model into conversational prose, the requested format dissolves, and exact-match evaluation pipelines silently misjudge the result. To make this measurable, we release PARACONSIST, a 900-prompt benchmark of 150 base queries with five lexical, syntactic, and semantic-expansion prompt variants each, and a Semantic Consistency Score that decomposes prompt-variant robustness into answer consistency, sentence-BERT semantic similarity, and length stability. Under a whole-word answer-set match, only ~22% of closed-form variant responses preserve the ground-truth label inside their output, while ~78% drift away from the answer space entirely. In our pool, the dominant predictor of collapse is task structure rather than model identity, with model differentiation jointly carried by answer consistency and length stability. Robustness audits should therefore track response-mode preservation as a first-class reliability target alongside answer accuracy.

cs.CL
arXiv ↗PDF ↗