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 18:15 — 2026-11-04 18:15(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 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序等待首次采集
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.39438

ATLAS-Bench: An Agentic Tool-Use Benchmark for Local Area Search

Keyun Zhang, Dapeng Yin, Fanfu Wang, Shuang Lang, Zhenyu Zhu, Yulin Huang, Chong Yang, Pengjie Wang

Reliable local search is essential for LLM agents to support everyday decisions and longer plans by finding places that meet users' needs at given times and locations. Yet existing benchmarks provide limited coverage of whether search results satisfy mandatory requirements, account for preferences, and ground factual and experiential judgments in place attributes and reviews. We introduce ATLAS-Bench, a benchmark of 1,200 queries across three regions, expanded from real search events using place attributes, reviews, and existing user profiles from the platform. Each query distinguishes mandatory requirements from preferences and factual conditions from subjective judgments, with supporting evidence and criteria for checking each requirement. Queries are validated through iterative assertion checks and cross-model review. We also introduce ATLASBox, a standardized evaluation environment with search tools and a fixed point-of-interest (POI) knowledge base. Given a query, timestamp, and location, an agent searches place attributes and reviews to recommend evidence-supported options or report that no place meets all mandatory requirements. We evaluate answer quality, trajectory quality, and execution cost. Across 14 configurations of 11 models, GPT-6-Luna achieves the highest constraint satisfaction rate among returned recommendations (71.5%) and factual accuracy (95.6%). However, it returns at least one acceptable recommendation for fewer satisfiable queries than GLM-5.3 (67.3% versus 85.3%). These results highlight the challenge of satisfying individual requirements while providing usable recommendations across queries.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.AI
arXiv ↗PDF ↗