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 20:01 — 2026-11-04 20:01(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 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序等待首次采集
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.37448

Test-Time Communication in Trading Agent Swarms

Avid Fayaz, Harry Zhang, Håvard Alstadheim, Erik Nordlöf, Vilhelm Karlin, André Silva

Communication between agents has mostly been studied on tasks with a shared objective and fast, clear feedback. Trading has neither: each agent manages its own account, with decisions being scored by markets late and noisily. A trading swarm is thus a population of independent decision-makers rather than a team, for which convergence is a risk and not the goal. We ran 200 agents from four model families in groups of ten under five communication regimes, from isolation to message boards and shared notes, over seven US trading days (1 to 9 October 2026), logging everything each agent read before every decision. In two of the four families, communicating groups came to hold far more of the same stocks than the isolated group. A group's return was largely the return on what its members held in common. Seeing a post from a groupmate made an agent 7 percentage points more likely to reuse an eight-word phrase from it. Agents that started too close together to see each other's posts shared such a phrase in 14% of cases, the rate that common inputs produce. Seeing the post did not detectably change that morning's trades. Case studies traced the adoption of positions and decision rules over subsequent days, and communicating groups sold in step more often than isolated ones. Because isolated groups also converged on the same stocks, sometimes completely, assessments of herding need to measure excess convergence relative to a no-peer baseline.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.MA · cs.AI · cs.CL
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2610.22276

MJev-Spatial: System One Spatial Intelligence via Native Attention Matching

Luozheng Qin, Yuhan Zhu, Changhai Zhou, Qian Qiao, Jun Gao, Yuhua Zhou, Harry Zhang, Xiangyu Zeng 等 13 位作者

Spatial intelligence lets an agent perceive and act in the physical world, and many of its judgments must be made at interaction rates: which spatial relation holds, how far an object is, or where to place it. Vision-language models (VLMs) produce these answers by free-form text generation, paying for autoregressive decoding and answer parsing even though the output space is compact: one of a few options, a scalar, or a 2D point. In light of this, we introduce MJev-Spatial, a System 1 multimodal decision model that tackles all three types of spatial understanding tasks within a unified classification framework. Specifically, MJev-Spatial treats each candidate as a class and scores it using the backbone's pretrained query and key projections, without adding parameters. The candidates are the given options for choice tasks, or value bins and image regions refined through coarse-to-fine classification for numerical and point prediction, respectively. At inference, each classification decision takes a single forward pass and generates no answer tokens. To train on heterogeneous spatial data efficiently, we supervise all coarse-to-fine stages jointly with teacher forcing in one forward pass, and combine this with length-aware global batching and cross-GPU load balancing, raising training throughput by 30.8% over the original batching strategy. Built on Qwen3.5-4B and trained on 12.3M question-answer pairs converted from existing spatial datasets, MJev-Spatial achieves the highest overall score (65.64%) among eight tested models, ranks first on seven of twelve benchmarks, and outperforms its unmodified autoregressive base model on all twelve, while running 2.5 times faster than the fastest autoregressive baseline and 5.6 times faster than the base model.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CV
arXiv ↗PDF ↗