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 13:39 — 2026-11-04 13:39(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:2610.35252

Labference: Benchmarking the Reasoning-Action Connection in Robotic Laboratories

Shitong Liu, Jingwei Zhang, Sheng Lian, Xinyu Zhuang, Kaiwen Guo, Quan Liu, Chunhai Zhao, Jiaxin He 等 20 位作者

Realizing Embodied AI for Science requires robots to translate experimental goals into reliable physical procedures, reducing hazardous and repetitive human work while generating evidence for scientific discovery. Although language-based planning and learned manipulation provide complementary capabilities, their integration requires robots to adapt subsequent operations to actual execution outcomes. For example, an unsuccessful placement changes what must be done next, even when the experimental goal remains unchanged. Existing benchmarks assess planning, manipulation, and laboratory workflows through task completion and reasoning or execution metrics; however, aggregate performance leaves the connection between outcome-dependent choices and physical execution unresolved. To address this evaluation gap, we introduce Labference, a benchmark for evaluating how observed physical outcomes guide subsequent choices and how those choices translate into robotic laboratory actions. Its evaluation protocol is designed to test outcome-dependent behavioral adaptation through controlled evidence variations, while independently measuring operation selection, physical execution, and task completion. Matched Oracle-assisted continuations from shared checkpoints then assess which forms of support improve subsequent choices and task completion. Initial weighing evaluations reveal target-selection errors in the tested VLA policies despite successful object transfers, whereas GPT-driven control achieves correct selection but encounters execution failures and substantial computation costs. Together, these findings highlight the need to connect task-appropriate reasoning with reliable, timely action. By making this connection measurable and diagnosable, Labference supports targeted improvements toward autonomous experimentation for Embodied AI for Science.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.RO
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1119ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

Ascending the Infinite Ladder: Benchmarking Spatial Deformation Reasoning in Vision-Language Models

Jiahuan Zhang, Shunwen Bai Zhejiang University, Tianheng Wang Hangzhou Institute of Medicine Chinese Academy of Science, KaiWen Guo Westlake University, Zijia Song National University of Defense Technology, Hanqing WU, Guozheng Rao Tianjin University, Kai Han The University of Hong Kong 等 9 位作者

Humans naturally possess the spatial reasoning ability to form and manipulate images and structures of objects in space. There is an increasing effort to endow Vision-Language Models (VLMs) with similar spatial reasoning capabilities. However, it remains unclear whether these models truly understand and manipulate spatial objects or not. To address this question, we propose a new evaluation framework aimed at assessing the performance of VLMs in spatial deformation reasoning tasks. Specifically, we construct a benchmark for spatial deformation reasoning from 2D to 3D. We explore whether the model can effectively perform spatial deformation reasoning from two directions: forward reasoning (given the operations, find the final state) and reverse reasoning (given the final state, determine the operations). We adopt a ladder competition format, using the number of deformation steps as the level classification criterion, with the goal of exploring the boundaries of the model’s deformation reasoning capabilities. Interestingly, the benchmarking results reveal that almost no model demonstrates plausible spatial deformation reasoning abilities. Furthermore, even after applying targeted training and mainstream reasoning enhancement methods, the models are still unable to perform well on 3D spatial deformation reasoning.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL · cs.CV

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表

ACL Anthology · ACL 2026 ↗PDF ↗