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

+2471新增论文
+2025其中 AI 相关
+163已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-11 05:58 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-10 15:22各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-10 06:35 — 2026-11-11 06:35(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:2026-11-11 05:58最近发现新增版本:2026-11-10 15:22库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-10 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。

20,643 已收录论文17,531 AI 相关5,643 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 3 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-11 05:57(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.06910

FrontierPhysics:评估面向端到端物理研究的智能体

FrontierPhysics: Evaluating Agents for End-to-End Physics Research

Bingran You, Wenjun Ke, Ria Rosenauer, Bo Liu, Wenbo Chen, Min Chen, Shuqi Xu, Yue Ma 等 72 位作者

AI 速读 基于摘要

作者提出包含56个由物理学家基于自身研究设计的端到端物理研究基准,用确定性验证器与专家评分量表同时考察智能体研究的正确性与可发表性。

cs.AI

查看原文摘要

AI agents are playing an increasingly important role in physics research. However, existing physics benchmarks only evaluate fixed questions, isolated sub-tasks, or paper reproduction with given solutions, and rarely check research quality alongside correctness. We introduce FrontierPhysics, an end-to-end benchmark with 56 tasks made by 42 physicists based on their own research, covering nine domains across theoretical, computational, and experimental physics. Each task requires agents to review the literature, develop a research plan, conduct research and experiments, and produce structured outputs and scientific manuscripts. Combining deterministic verifiers with expert-authored rubrics, FrontierPhysics evaluates whether agents' research is correct and publishable. Across 22 models in 26 configurations, no configuration passes more than 46 of its 168 rollouts. Manual review of agent trajectories shows that frontier agents' main weaknesses are insufficiently rigorous reasoning and limited expert intuition, rather than gaps in physics knowledge or execution errors.

新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.39639

Where Do Vision Language Models Fail at 3D Reasoning?

Khai Le-Duc, Nguyen Kim Hai Bui, An Ngo, Nam D. Hoang, Yueqi Song, Jiarui Liu, Thai Quoc Hoang, Fang Wu 等 14 位作者

原文摘要

Vision-language models can get individual judgments right while struggling to recover and consistently use the exact properties of a 3D object. To characterize this gap, we introduce BedBench, a controlled benchmark of thirteen procedurally generated tasks spanning individual judgments and composite answers. Across twelve open-weight and four frontier models, per-color counting exposes a pronounced weakness: humans achieve 93.3% accuracy, compared with 7.2% for the best model. Targeted fine-tuning raises one model's accuracy from 3.0% to 68.6%, but reveals a further difficulty: its answers about the most common colors remain inconsistent with its own per-color counts. Supplying those counts as text improves its judgments, showing that recovering a property does not mean using it consistently. Reasoning, scaling, and added visual cues each improve individual judgments, but none makes exact answers reliable. To locate the difficulty, we probe Qwen3.5-27B: exact per-color counts remain recoverable at the language model's input, yet the model's answers rarely recover them (65.0% for the probe vs. 3.0% for the model). Image-removal controls further show that some apparent successes require no visual evidence. These findings motivate evaluating 3D reasoning by exact correctness, consistent use, and image dependence, rather than accuracy alone. Code and dataset are publicly available: https://github.com/leduckhai/BedBench

cs.CV · cs.AI

首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-demo.39ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

PaperMentor: A Human-Centered Multi-Agent Writing Tutor for AI Research Papers in Overleaf

Jiarui Liu, Terry Jingchen Zhang Vector Institute, Ryan Faulkner DeepMind, Xuanqiang Angelo Huang, Vilém Zouhar Department of Computer Science, ETHZ - ETH Zurich, Dominik Glandorf EPFL - EPF Lausanne, Isabel Dahlgren, Rishit Dagli University of Toronto 等 21 位作者

原文摘要

Expert writing feedback from experienced researchers is critical for early-career scholars to improve their manuscripts, yet high-quality feedback often remains scarce because reviewing research papers is labor-intensive. Emerging AI-powered writing assistants largely focus on grammar fixes or simulating peer review with final scores, yet they fall short of providing concrete, actionable suggestions that help students improve their papers during drafting. We present PaperMentor, a human-centered writing assistant system that delivers actionable suggestions as Overleaf-native inline comments while leaving the actual writing entirely to human authors. PaperMentor integrates an expert skill library carefully curated from established researchers’ writing advice with 12 specialized agents covering different aspects of paper writing, such as formatting compliance, phrasing accuracy, and terminology consistency. In a user study (n=14), 90.6% of the generated comments were rated actionable and 67.5% were rated valid, significantly outperforming a GPT-5.2 baseline without the skill library. We release PaperMentor as open source for public use.

cs.CL · cs.MA

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 3: System Demonstrations) · 2026 · 正式发表