跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

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:2026-11-15 21:08 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-14 22:37 — 2026-11-15 22:37(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:2026-11-15 21:08最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09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6,729 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 2026-11-15 21:07(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02009

Retrieval-Enhanced Cultural Evaluation for Social Media Translation Training

Linjuan Wu, Yiwen Qiu, Xinze Lyu, Dingming Li, Hui Yao, Zhongyi Sang, Ye Guo, Daoxin Zhang 等 14 位作者

原文摘要

Social media translation requires preserving meaning while capturing the cultural nuances of user-generated content (UGC). However, gaps in the cultural knowledge of LLM-based evaluators can lead to inaccurate assessments and unreliable training rewards. To improve these signals, we use retrieval-enhanced cultural evaluation to train CUE-MT, a family of social media translation models. A calibrated, domain-specific Judger guides supervised data refinement and is augmented by an Agent for hard-example mining and reinforcement learning. The Agent retrieves relevant external evidence as needed and distills it into concise hints that the Judger uses to score translations and assign rewards. Across 9B, 27B, and 35B-A3B backbones, CUE-MT outperforms the evaluated open-source baselines of comparable size on CUE-MT-Bench and three public benchmarks. Human evaluation on CUE-MT-Bench shows cultural effectiveness gains of 7.44-15.12 percentage points over the strongest external baseline in each size group. Retrieval improves the Judger's four-way classification accuracy by 8.07 percentage points over a matched no-retrieval baseline that uses LLM-generated hints alone. Training ablations further support the combination of hard-example mining and Agent-enhanced rewards.

cs.CL

新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.36831

Right Click, Wrong Box: Grading GUI Grounding by What a Click Does

Xiaokang Yuan, Binhui Yao, Luwei Yang, Ruimin Chen, Zeng Wang

原文摘要

Leading GUI grounders score 93 to 96% on ScreenSpot-v2, and reported gaps between new and prior models are about a point. At this level the useful question is what the remaining errors are. Benchmarks count a click as correct only inside one annotated box, but interfaces often expose one action through several elements: a duplicated link, the label of a checkbox, the title next to a logo. The box is not wrong. The rule is incomplete. We call a click correct when executing it produces the same outcome as clicking the annotated target. A probe that executes and fingerprints about a thousand clicks per page turns this definition into outcome maps and an execution judge for live web applications, with no new annotation. We execute the predictions of three strong 7--8B grounders on a code forge and an online shop. About one in five and one in three of the clicks that box scoring rejects reach the intended outcome, and the shares remain one in seven and one in three when the instructions are rewritten as natural tasks. A blind audit of 11 models on ScreenSpot-v2 (three 7--8B grounders and eight 3B variants) finds the same effect on web screenshots, with two independent reviewers on a 60-unit subset. The share is highest for the strongest grounders. Training seeds and test-set sampling add noise that more runs and paired intervals control. Box scoring instead under-counts correct clicks, which repetition does not remove, and the audit-based correction of 0.2 to 1.8 points on ScreenSpot-v2 is as large as the gaps the field reports. The correction is needed in evaluation. In our 3B GRPO study, crediting equivalent clicks in the reward gives no stable gain over box rewards across three seeds and four test sets. We release the probe, the outcome maps, the audit and every prediction.

cs.CV