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
+0已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-09 06:10 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-08 06:02各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 07:02 — 2026-11-09 07:02(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:2026-11-09 06:10最近发现新增版本:2026-11-08 06:02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4,057 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 2026-11-09 06:08(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.06628

From Certified Pairs to a Certified Hub: Reasoner-Checked Crosswalks for the Information Exchange Standard

Fabio Rovai

原文摘要

A national digital twin was conceived as an ecosystem of twins connected through mappings to a common foundation, but the roadmap that promises to confirm those mappings are valid never says what valid means. We give the test a precise form, coherence and conservativity of the merged ontology, borrowed from logic-based alignment repair, and apply it to the Information Exchange Standard (IES), first pair by pair and then to whole hubs. Crosswalks from IES into thirteen ontologies across seven sector groups, anchored on the building ontologies BOT, Brick, and SAREF4BLDG, pass through separate stages of matching, human review, certification of each SKOS correspondence against the two class hierarchies, and reasoning with HermiT. Pair by pair, the stages catch different failures: certification alone removed all 526 conservativity violations of the raw crosswalks, review alone left 73, and together they made eleven of twelve overlapping pairs coherent and conservative. Pairwise certification does not compose. Merging the three certified building crosswalks into one hub made five Brick classes unsatisfiable, through a homonym between the IES and Brick notions of a floor that only BOT's disjointness axioms expose; rejecting that one row gave a coherent and conservative hub that entails 290 cross-ontology links nobody wrote down. The core hub is inconsistent before any crosswalk is added, because two published standards, the Open Energy Ontology and BFO 2020, contradict each other; with either one left out it is coherent and conservative. A hub, not a pair, is the unit an ecosystem of twins has to certify.

cs.AI · cs.DB · cs.LO

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.06569

One Scale, Four Texts: Gaps, Overlaps and Silent Repairs in Published Grading Schemes

Elisa Rovai, Fabio Rovai

原文摘要

Category systems often reach their users as text, and readers apply them with tacit repairs. We ask what such a text determines once the repairs are removed, using diabetic retinopathy grading, where one international scale circulates in several documents. We transcribe four texts (the English screening definitions of 2025, the international scale as tabulated in 2017 and as published in 2003, and an Italian guideline of 2015) into one rule language over 24 finding variables, and make every point a text leaves open a named precisification. Exhaustive enumeration of 1,425,807,360 finding profiles, re-derived by an SMT solver and spot-checked by an OWL reasoner, shows that every text that assigns actions leaves some eyes without a category under every reading; that the 2017 tabulation has a proliferative class that is empty when read literally and a macular gap that the 2003 text lacks, so that no function maps the 2003 grades onto the 2017 grades; and that on image findings alone the English and Italian texts order some pairs of eyes in opposite ways. On 927 annotated photographs from three public datasets, with retinal thickening assumed absent, the English text and the 2017 tabulation disagree on referral for 26.8% of the eyes of one dataset (DDR) on which both decide, and in a pre-registered experiment classifiers trained on each text's labels side with their own text. Thickening cannot be seen on a colour photograph; left free, every disagreement involving England becomes undecidable, so it rests on what the camera cannot show. In a second pre-registered study, language models that answered without deliberating repaired most gap and overlap items even when told to read literally, while Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Claude Opus 5.5 reported the defects far more often; within two models, deliberation reduced silent repair without removing it.

cs.AI