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

+1087新增论文
+804其中 AI 相关
+107已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-14 11:06 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-13 20:44各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-13 12:48 — 2026-11-14 12:48(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:2026-11-14 11:06最近发现新增版本:2026-11-13 20:44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6,727 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 2026-11-14 11:04(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.16581

Do the Details Help the Whole? One-Way Transfer from Person Actions to Group Intent in VLMs on JRDB-Social

Chengguang Gan, Zhixi Cai, Yunhao Liang, Hanjun Wei, QingHao Zhang, Shiwen Ni

原文摘要

Social scene datasets label people at two levels: what each person is doing and what the group is there for. Training on both levels at once is often assumed to help each of them. We test this assumption for vision-language models (VLMs) on JRDB-Social, treating person actions as the details and group intent as the whole. We fine-tune Qwen3.5 4B under eight training arms with three seeds, repeat the core arms on Qwen3.5 9B and Qwen3-VL 4B, and judge every arm with a verdict rule fixed before testing. Writing each member's actions before the intent raises intent macro-F1 from 30.1 to 31.0, and writing the intent first reaches 31.2, while action F1 stays within 0.2 points of an action-only model. Under the selected recipe, no arm trained with intent improves actions. The gain requires correct, image-grounded actions: empty action lists or actions borrowed from another group with the same intent lower intent F1. Forced-prefix tests, occlusion, member masking, linear probes and component grafting show that the intent follows the written actions, relies more on people and partly resides in the vision tower. Supplying actions as input instead of as targets hurts both levels.

cs.CV · cs.CL

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.15568

Can We Make an LLM Dumber, or Is It Just Playing Dumb? An Empirical Study of Believable Performance Throttling

Chengguang Gan, Yunhao Liang, Hanjun Wei, QingHao Zhang, Shiwen Ni

原文摘要

A benchmark score is commonly read as a proxy for model capability. We study the inverse problem: can a model be driven to a target score, and do its failures resemble those of a naturally weaker model? We operationalize believable performance reduction along three axes: target calibration, item-difficulty structure, and error-distribution similarity to a real weak reference. We introduce CapLadder, an IRT-calibrated suite of 1,985 items spanning mathematics, code, multiple-choice reasoning, and tool use. A simple weak-teacher LoRA dial reaches unseen target levels on reasoning with a 1.9-point held-out calibration error, whereas prompting, temperature, and weight noise cannot combine comparable range and precision. Yet on multiple choice, the dial converges to an answer-token attractor: up to 97% of its newly introduced errors land on one letter, with the attractor changing from D in Qwen to A in Llama. Logit interventions identify a dominant near-constant shift: subtracting the estimated shift on held-out items recovers 52 to 59% of lost accuracy and removes the dominant attractor, while option permutation confirms that the bias tracks token position rather than option content. With high inter-annotator agreement ($κ=0.94$), human-coded error-category distributions nonetheless match the weak reference on reasoning (JS = 0.00), showing that local plausibility and aggregate detectability differ. Structured tool calls exhibit more natural degradation in the Qwen family (JS = 0.09), while a globally calibrated dial transfers poorly across benchmarks (14.2-point error on two usable benchmarks). Precise score control, therefore, does not imply a portable or believable reduction in skill.

cs.CL