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

+1029新增论文
+789其中 AI 相关
+127已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-11 17:20 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-11 13:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-10 18:19 — 2026-11-11 18:19(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 17:20最近发现新增版本:2026-11-11 13:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-11 08:00

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。

21,672 已收录论文18,320 AI 相关6,055 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 17:18(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.14477

FERN: Cross-Benchmark Table Retrieval for Text-to-SQL with Frozen Retrievers and Learned Ranking

Arjun Rao, Nishant Gopinath

原文摘要

Text-to-SQL systems over large pooled catalogs must first retrieve the tables a question needs. We compare against the published table recall of RASL, which uses Claude 3.5 models to extract keywords and select tables, on pooled BIRD, Spider, and Fiben catalogs. FERN (Feature-Engineered Ranking with No generative LLM) instead fuses three frozen retrievers into 100 candidates, describes each with up to 120 features, and reorders them with LightGBM rankers fitted once on BIRD's training questions. On Spider, where it was not fitted, its candidate pool alone reaches RASL's published recall at fifteen tables (98.0), and the ranker raises the share of questions with every gold table in the top five (complete@5) from 83.9% to 95.6%. At five tables, FERN's recall is within one point of RASL's on Spider (96.7 vs 97.0) and on BIRD with its evidence hints (96.6 vs 97.5), and 8.2 points below on BIRD without them (89.3). On 121 real BEAVER questions, without BEAVER fitting, its recall at fifteen (82.1) falls between two BEAVER-trained retrievers (80.8, 84.5), but its complete@15 is below both (49.6 vs 54.5 and 62.0). On Fiben, it falls far short at fifteen tables (54.2 vs 69.2, different question sets), although its recall at fifty is numerically close to RASL's question-only retrieval result (80.7 vs 79.4). On BIRD dev with evidence, non-retrieval features raise complete@5 by 7.7 points over retrieval signals alone. On BIRD dev, median latency is 208 ms per question on one A100, without hosted model calls.

cs.IR · cs.CL

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.12731

NIFT-SQL: Customer-Supervised Table Scoring for Enterprise Text-to-SQL Retrieval

Arjun Rao, Nishant Gopinath

原文摘要

Enterprise text-to-SQL starts with finding the tables a question needs, which is hard when a schema spans several databases and hundreds of cryptic tables. We ask whether models trained separately on each customer's example questions, reading only table names, column names, and declared keys, improve table retrieval. NIFT-SQL (Necessity-Informed Fusion for Text-to-SQL) fuses hybrid search over a retriever fine-tuned on the customer's questions with a fine-tuned 560M cross-encoder that scores every table for whether the query needs it, through a logistic regression fitted on held-out questions. On BEAVER, LiveSQLBench, and LiveSQLBench-Large (244 to 971 tables; four splits, three trainings), NIFT-SQL places every reference table in the top 15 for 69.2%, 89.5%, and 85.6% of test questions, against 30.4%, 41.0%, and 21.8% for hybrid search and 61.1%, 81.7%, and 70.4% for the fine-tuned retriever with the same labels. With off-the-shelf search, the cross-encoder without fine-tuning is 21 points lower. A zero-shot 8B reranker needs no labels and, routed by database, shows no resolved complete@15 difference on two collections; adding its scores as two fusion features gives a high-accuracy mode that reaches 72.4%, 92.5%, and 88.6%, ahead of the validation-selected zero-shot reranker variant on two collections, with no resolved difference on the third. Rank fusion of the two trained parts, grouped by database, shows no resolved difference from the learned fusion. Scored once on a newer BEAVER release, NIFT-SQL beats search and leads the label-matched retriever at top 8 on the synthetic test, but trails it at top 15 on real questions.

cs.IR

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.07959

CoRD: Coupled Rollouts Fill the Blind Spot of On-Policy Distillation

Guhan Chen, Bohan Li, Jun Rao, Hejin Wang, Songtao Tian, Yexin Xie, Xiaojun Meng, Peng Yuan 等 11 位作者

原文摘要

On-policy distillation trains a student on its own rollouts, so states the teacher would reach but the student does not are seldom supervised. We introduce CoRD (coupled-rollout distillation), which keeps the on-policy loss and moves only the distribution of training states toward the teacher, drawing rollouts from a geometric interpolation of student and teacher through the maximal coupling of speculative decoding. The coupling keeps the student's token wherever the two distributions agree and otherwise substitutes a token from the part of the target the student underweights, so interventions are as rare as any exact sampler allows and recede as the student learns. Across six base students from two model families (Qwen3 and Qwen3.5, 0.6B to 4B), CoRD raises average pass@1 over on-policy distillation by 0.9 to 2.0 points and pass@8 by 1.2 to 3.4 points on five public math benchmarks at equal steps and data. On frozen teacher-reached states, a 4B student trained with CoRD reaches in 16 steps a gap closure that on-policy distillation does not reach in 80, and substitution rules intervening at least as often in other directions fall short of CoRD.

cs.LG · cs.CL