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

+1087新增论文
+800其中 AI 相关
+64已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-06 10:06 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-06 10:05各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-05 11:05 — 2026-11-06 11:05(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:2026-11-06 10:06最近发现新增版本:2026-11-06 10:05库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-05 12:54

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。

16,167 已收录论文13,917 AI 相关3,571 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 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-06 10:04(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02001

TrackMem: Tracking Evolving Beliefs in Long-Horizon Financial Dialogue

Austin M. Y. Cheung, Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Go Nam Lui, Lok Kan Chan, Ginny Y. Wong, Simon See

Memory systems for LLM agents are evaluated mostly on social dialogue, where facts accumulate and rarely change, so remembering reduces largely to finding the turn in which something was said. Financial dialogue breaks this assumption: figures are revised, stances shift without being restated, rules stated once govern later questions, and a single company is discussed under several analytical lenses. Memory systems that retrieve the passages most similar to a question, or the most recent ones, therefore return superseded values, miss rules that share no wording with the question, and cannot recover a stance spread across sessions. We present TrackMem, a per-speaker graph memory that tracks the history of figures, separates perspectives by entity and lens, and preserves each speaker's actions in chronological order. To evaluate it, we introduce FinLoCoMo, a benchmark of 15 long-horizon investment conversations with 765 questions in two splits: one following the LoCoMo categories and one targeting four failure modes. With two readers, TrackMem outperforms existing memory systems on both splits. On the failure-mode split it reaches 73.9% macro accuracy against 69.4% for the strongest baseline, with the largest gains on questions about revised figures (86.5% against 73.4%).

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL · cs.AI
arXiv ↗PDF ↗