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 23:55 · 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 2026-11-08 00:04 — 2026-11-09 00:04(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 23:55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 3 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-08 23:54(北京时间)
版本更新 · v3arXiv:2607.16097

Understanding Reasoning from Pretraining to Post-Training

Jingyan Shen, Ang Li, Salman Rahman, Yifan Sun, Micah Goldblum, Matus Telgarsky, Pavel Izmailov

原文摘要

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become central to improving large language models (LLMs) on complex reasoning tasks, yet RL post-training is largely studied in isolation from the pretraining that precedes it. As a result, two basic questions remain open: (1) how do pretraining choices (model size, data) shape the returns to RL compute, and (2) what does RL actually do to the model? These questions are difficult to study in the standard LLM setting: pretraining corpora are vast and uncontrolled, making it hard to attribute behaviors to pretraining versus RL, and systematic compute sweeps across both stages are prohibitively expensive. To address these challenges, we use chess as a controlled testbed for studying reasoning across the full pretraining-to-post-training pipeline. We follow the standard LLM training pipeline by pretraining language models from 5M to 1B parameters on human chess games, supervised fine-tuning on synthetic reasoning traces, and running RL on chess puzzles with verifiable rewards. Using this framework, we find that the post-RL performance at given RL compute level is well-predicted from the pretraining loss, and slope of the RL reward curves improves approximately linearly with the pretraining tokens. Beyond scaling, we find that RL does not simply sharpen the SFT policy: on easy puzzles it amplifies correct moves the SFT policy already preferred, while on hard puzzles it surfaces correct moves that were nearly absent under SFT. We further test whether our findings transfer beyond chess by training a 1B language model on math-domain text, where the same predictive pattern emerges: longer-pretrained checkpoints reach higher post-RL performance and improve faster under RL. In sum, we provide a quantitative account of the pretraining-to-RL interface and a controlled testbed for studying the science of reasoning across the full pretraining-to-post-training pipeline.

cs.LG · cs.AI · cs.CL

版本更新 · v3arXiv:2610.17697

LeanPRM:面向自然语言证明验证的 Lean 落地过程监督

LeanPRM: Lean-Grounded Process Supervision for Natural Language Proof Verification

Rodney Lafuente-Mercado, Salman Rahman, Jingyan Shen, James Shiffer, Saadia Gabriel, Pavel Izmailov

AI 速读 基于摘要

LeanPRM 利用 Lean 证明助手自动为自然语言证明生成步骤级标签,训练无需人工标注的步骤验证器。

cs.LG · cs.AI · cs.LO

查看原文摘要

AI systems now write long and difficult mathematical proofs, and checking their step-by-step validity is becoming a bottleneck. A learned verifier could check proofs cheaply, but training one requires a correctness label on every step, and such labels are hard to obtain for open-ended proofs. Existing methods take them from human annotators, which is costly, or derive them from final answers, which proofs do not have, and formalizing each proof in Lean requires expert effort. We introduce LeanPRM, a framework that uses the Lean proof assistant to create step-level labels for natural-language proofs. A model writes a natural-language proof together with a paired formal proof, without feedback from Lean. Lean then labels every step, and a second model discards failures caused only by the formal syntax, so that the negative labels mark errors in the mathematics. LeanPRM contains 10,634 proofs with 152K labeled steps and no human annotation. A Qwen3-4B verifier trained on LeanPRM raises exact step-label accuracy on a held-out set of 200 proofs (LeanPRM-Bench) from 48.2 to 74.7, as opposed to 60.3 when the same base model is trained on PRM800K. It also selects better proofs in best-of-N selection on IMO-level problems, and outperforms the PRM800K-trained verifier on three of four external verification benchmarks. Training on LeanPRM improves verifiers at every size from 0.6B to 8B parameters on LeanPRM-Bench, Hard2Verify and IMO-GradingBench. Given the labels need no human annotation, LeanPRM can grow with the supply of formal statements, offering a path to step-level feedback on AI-generated proofs that are hard for humans to check.

新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.29927HF 社区推荐

Your Benchmark Is an Empirical Measure Over Difficulty

Yifan Sun, Naicheng Yu, Jiawen Gong, Jingyan Shen, Huan Zhang

原文摘要

A benchmark is not merely a collection of test questions; it naturally induces an empirical measure over difficulty. In this work, we develop this measure-based view of benchmark evaluation. This perspective allows us to identify and formalize two central failure modes: measure mismatch, where the benchmark difficulty distribution differs from the intended difficulty distribution, and coverage gaps, where uncovered regions along the difficulty axis prevent benchmarks from detecting meaningful localized training progress. We propose two diagnostic metrics that capture these two failure modes and provide rigorous theoretical guarantees. Empirically, we analyze 25 popular benchmarks spanning 7 domains using carefully estimated item difficulties. Our results show that many benchmarks implicitly overweight certain difficulty regions, so their leaderboard conclusions should be interpreted with caution; others leave substantial portions of the difficulty axis uncovered, limiting their ability to monitor the model improvement process. Finally, we turn diagnosis into action by introducing BenchFill, a simple difficulty-targeted item rewriting algorithm that effectively reduces local coverage gaps.

cs.LG · cs.AI · cs.CL