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

+1072新增论文
+845其中 AI 相关
+94已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-09 14:26 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-09 13:22各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 15:07 — 2026-11-09 15:07(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:2026-11-09 14:26最近发现新增版本:2026-11-09 13:22库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-07 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。

18,172 已收录论文15,506 AI 相关4,527 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 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 14:25(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.36153

Stratum: Repository Memory for Coding Agents Beyond the Context Window

Yuvraj Sehgal, Mahsa Panahandeh, Naser Ezzati-Jivan

原文摘要

Context windows have grown a thousand-fold, yet coding agents still start every session with no memory of their past work. They re-read files, retry failed approaches, and forget root causes they established hours earlier. This is not a context-length problem but a memory-architecture problem. Our hypothesis: coding agents need persistent, experience-aware repository memory, so that knowledge survives from one session to the next. Three measurements on real repositories motivate the design. First, mid-size projects already exceed the largest production context windows, and storing knowledge inside the model's key-value (KV) cache costs $10^4$ to $10^5$ times more bytes than storing it as indexed text. Second, across 752 real bug-fix commits, the median fix edits two files, and these files plus their direct imports amount to less than 10% of the repository; the bottleneck is selection, not capacity. Third, even with transitive import reachability and test links, 47% of co-edited file pairs remain structurally disconnected; the knowledge needed for selection must be mined from history and experience. We sketch Stratum, a tiered memory that lives with the repository and serves it through page-safe tools: every response states what was returned, what remains, and what it cost. Retrieval over a store of one million nodes takes 1.7 ms at the median. In a multi-session experiment on eight real bugs, a fresh agent that inherited a prior session's memory, written by a different model, identified the root-cause file in 21 of 24 trials versus 6 of 24 for a retrieval-only baseline (Fisher $p<10^{-4}$), at 4.5x lower median token cost. With the notes of all eight investigations pooled in one store, success remained 8/8.

cs.SE · cs.AI

新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.36114

Context Is a Pipeline, Not a Window: Information Attrition in LLM Agent Harnesses

Yuvraj Sehgal, Mahsa Panahandeh, Naser Ezzati-Jivan

原文摘要

LLM agents are judged by two numbers: the size of the context window, and how often the final answer is correct. Both numbers miss a third thing: how much of a tool's output is lost before the model ever sees it. We measured this loss in a real tool-using agent. The agent finds the cause of injected faults by reading Linux kernel traces. The context window was almost empty: across 720 runs, the single largest prompt used only 5.75% of it. Yet a third of all tool results (3,827 of 11,189) were cut before they reached the model, and every cut result became broken JSON. The harness cut each result by slicing its JSON text at a fixed length. This does not shorten a result evenly. It deletes whatever data sits near the end. One field reached the model in only 4.7% of calls. A second field, in the very same results, reached the model in 99.3% of calls. Which field held the fault's evidence depended on when the faulty process started: early or late in the trace. The agent's diagnosis accuracy matched this same split. So we ran controlled experiments to test one question: did the data loss cause the drop in accuracy? This paper makes four contributions. First, we model an agent's context as a five-stage pipeline, with a measured failure at each stage. Second, we replay 864 real tool results, including one from a production trace where the shipped cut deletes all 128 records of the fault's evidence. Third, a controlled experiment shows that the cut's real cost appears first as extra work, not as wrong answers: 43% more tool calls, twice the computation, and yield falling from 0.61 to 0.31. The agent still finds the right answer when it has another way to reach it. Fourth, a survey of seven agent frameworks finds two that cut tool output the same unsafe way. Whether the data cut truly causes the accuracy drop is still an open question.

cs.SE · cs.AI