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

+2新增论文
+2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:2026-11-13 06:05 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-12 06:37各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-12 06:20 — 2026-11-13 06:20(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:2026-11-13 06:05最近发现新增版本:2026-11-12 06:37库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-11 08:00

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。

21,675 已收录论文18,323 AI 相关6,056 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 2026-11-13 06:03(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.13114

ASPIRE: An Agentic System-Identification Platform for Iterative Reasoning and Exploration

Erik Derner, Jiří Kubalík, Robert Babuška

原文摘要

System identification requires expert decisions on the identification method, incorporation of prior physical knowledge, and model validation. We propose ASPIRE, a framework for nonlinear system identification in which a large language model agent selects and executes the identification method. ASPIRE constructs closed-form, nonlinear static or dynamic models from measured data, optionally supplemented by a system description, the intended use of the model, and physical requirements expressed formally or in natural language. Each model includes its parameters, an estimation record, an interpretation of its terms, and an error evaluated on test data inaccessible to the agent. Formal physical requirements are verified independently. ASPIRE operates autonomously or interactively, allowing the agent to ask questions and the user to request further analyses and identification rounds. We evaluate ASPIRE on three measured systems: a mobile robot, a rotational system with dry friction, and a laboratory fermenter. Each system is tested with and without a description, in five runs per task. All 30 runs delivered valid models, at a cost of 0.96 to 3.38 US dollars per run. An assessment by the authors found that, for the 30 models recommended by the agent, one per run, the interpretation of the model and the documentation of its structure selection and parameter estimation fully satisfied 132 of 150 assessed items and partly satisfied 18. The most frequent discrepancy, found in nine models, concerned inaccurate or unsupported claims about model structure selection.

cs.RO · cs.AI · cs.CL · cs.LG · eess.SY

版本更新 · v2arXiv:2610.27908

Polarity Blindness in LLM Safety: A Systematic Study of Negation, Antonym Substitution, and Adversarial Framing

Diego Miguel Lozano, Erik Derner, Juan Antonio Pérez-Ortiz, Nuria Oliver

原文摘要

Negation remains a persistent challenge for language models across NLP tasks and modalities. We show that this weakness can undermine LLM safety guardrails through a structural vulnerability we term polarity blindness: the failure to recognize harmful intent after polarity-altering linguistic transformations. We study two forms of polarity inversion: grammatical negation and antonym replacement, and use synonym replacement as a polarity-preserving control. We further test whether an adversarial textual wrapper amplifies these failures. Using a 260-prompt benchmark across 10 state-of-the-art LLMs and 3 languages (English, Spanish, Czech), stratified by harmfulness potential and evaluated on a validated 0-5 harm scale, we find that polarity blindness affects most evaluated models, with mean harm scores reaching 4.12 for the most vulnerable model. The effect persists across typologically differing negation systems, suggesting that polarity blindness reflects a broader limitation in semantic robustness rather than a language- or grammar-specific failure.

cs.CL · cs.AI