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 18:41 · 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 2026-11-07 18:46 — 2026-11-08 18:46(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 18:41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 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-08 18:39(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2610.32955

Measure Before You Train: Typed Decision Models vs. a Classical Baseline vs. a Generative LLM for Routing a Personal Multilingual Inbox

Federico Lucca

原文摘要

Personal email agents decide, for every incoming message, its type and urgency and whether to draft a reply, create a task or ignore it. In production these decisions are delegated to a generative LLM or to rules, and their error rate is rarely measured. We describe Foyer, a self-hosted personal inbox agent, and a measurement protocol (stratified sampling, a frozen snapshot of the model input, thread-grouped splits, secret redaction, and human labels collected in the agent's own review loop) that produces ground truth before any training. On 231 real emails in Italian and English we compare the production rules, a TF-IDF + logistic-regression baseline, five typed decision models, local and hosted (Tev1, Nimble, Jev), and three hosted generative LLMs. Four results. First, the production rules for message type score 28% against a 58% majority class. Second, with about two hundred labels a logistic regression has the highest accuracy on every field (type 0.79, urgency 0.74, needs-reply 0.83, is-noise 0.90) at a latency three orders of magnitude lower; the best zero-shot system reaches 0.74 on type. Third, the sender's relationship to the owner is recovered from other emails of the same contact with 98.6% accuracy on the 63% of emails whose sender has been seen before. Fourth, per-email accuracy is not the product metric: composed into actions, the baseline ignores 18% of the emails that needed a reply or a task, against 4% for the best generative model; a cost-chosen threshold cuts that rate to 6% and makes the classifier the cheapest system at every price on the unbiased corpus. A third, adversarially sampled round (722 emails in total) with eleven pre-registered hypotheses confirms seven and refutes four. Two blind annotators agree with the reference at kappa = 0.81 and 0.86 on type. We release the protocol, the harness and the pre-registration; the emails stay private.

cs.CL · cs.HC · cs.LG