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:2026-11-14 14:09 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-13 20:44各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-13 14:36 — 2026-11-14 14:36(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:2026-11-14 14:09最近发现新增版本:2026-11-13 20:44库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 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。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,727 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 2026-11-14 14:07(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.14704

Code as Explanations: Executable and Verifiable LLM Explanations

Nhi Nguyen, Shauli Ravfogel, Rajesh Ranganath

原文摘要

As large language models (LLMs) increasingly make consequential decisions and solve problems alongside humans, we must understand how models arrive at their conclusions. Understanding how an LLM behaves requires observing it across multiple inputs, yet free-text explanations such as chain-of-thought (CoT) are generated per instance and cannot be easily verified on new inputs. We propose {code explanations to address the mismatch in how LLM explanations are generated versus how they are evaluated: a program explains LLM behavior across a dataset of inputs, and its execution enables automatic verification. We define Consistency metric that measures the fraction of inputs on which the program reproduces the LLM's outputs, and use it to evaluate and select candidate programs. Across three open-source code-capable LLMs and eight tasks, we find that LLMs can produce highly consistent code explanations in several settings. Code explanations are also 6$\times$ to 100$\times$ shorter than CoT, and better align with model behavior in 9 out of 24 settings. However, consistency is significantly lower on tasks with more complex linguistic components, where generated programs reproduce model outputs no more frequently than an uninformative explanation baseline, and these programs often rely on longer hard-coded patterns. In experiments with Claude Opus 5.5, providing the model with consistency feedback and code execution improves explanation consistency across tasks, but consistency remains significantly lower on more complex tasks. Our findings establish executable code as a novel, verifiable, and compact approach to explaining LLM behavior and highlight verification feedback as a promising direction for improving explanation consistency. The code for this paper is at https://github.com/rajesh-lab/code-as-explanations.

cs.LG · cs.AI · cs.CL · stat.ML

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.11396

Search-by-Answer Bias in Retrieval Models

Adiel Avigad, Shauli Ravfogel, Yoav Goldberg

原文摘要

Dense retrievers are meant to select passages that match a query's semantic specification. We show they suffer from search-by-answer bias: they favor passages that mention answer objects the model knows (scores as likely), over passages that support valid alternative answers. We test this with controlled factual contrasts from LAMA/TREx. For each retriever, we measure how strongly the model scores the canonical object over an alternative object using a token-prediction head, and ask whether this score predicts passage rankings. Across eight retrievers, including DPR, Spider variants, Contriever, E5, and Qwen3-Embedding, larger token-prediction scores consistently predict higher retrieval scores for passages containing the corresponding object. This holds when passages differ only in the answer object, and even when the passage that mentions the high-scoring object expresses a wrong relation. Dense retrieval thus exhibits search-by-answer bias during passage selection, shaping which evidence is retrieved.

cs.CL · cs.IR