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 19:37 · 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 20:23 — 2026-11-09 20:23(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 19:37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 19:35(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.35558

EXCISE: Locating and Excising Distracting Sentences in Medical Question Answering

Yerim Hong, Sohyun Son, Heeseung Chung, Mujeen Sung

原文摘要

Language models are increasingly considered for clinical decision support, where their answers should be grounded in clinical evidence and remain robust to irrelevant information. Prior work shows that a single irrelevant sentence can lower the accuracy of medical models, but not where inside the model its effect can be removed, or how to do so without knowing which sentence it is. We find that blocking attention to a known distractor restores the answer, whereas head masking can suppress correct answers. We also show that the model's hidden states mark the distractor as the sentence that least fits the case even when the model follows it. To remove a distractor's effect without knowing which sentence it is, we propose EXCISE, an inference-time method that blocks the sentence most influencing the answer, but only if the model's hidden states mark it as inconsistent with the case. On MedQA-TD (MedQA with Targeted Distractors), a benchmark we construct in which each distractor targets a specific wrong option, EXCISE gains 16.7-22.8 accuracy points at a 1.5-2.1-point cost on the same questions without distractors, outperforming prompting, rewriting, and steering baselines for all three models. Its gains extend to MedDistractQA and BiasMedQA, as well as chain-of-thought generation.

cs.CL

新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.34951

Improving Reasoning with Rollout Agreement for Group-Based Policy Optimization

Sohyun Son, Yerim Hong, Jaeyun Park, Mujeen Sung

原文摘要

Recent methods for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) use rollout diversity to improve reasoning performance or training efficiency. Despite these gains, the extent to which differences among correct-answer rollouts reflect useful alternative reasoning or unresolved errors remains poorly understood. We investigate this question through a blind paired analysis of a model trained with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), comparing the highest- and lowest-agreement correct-answer traces for the same problem. Across 126 pairs, low-agreement traces have more spurious reasoning than high-agreement traces (35% vs. 22%), including internal inconsistencies and misuse of problem conditions. Based on these findings, we propose RoAR (Rollout-Agreement Reward), which adds reasoning-level agreement to GRPO's rewards for verified-correct rollouts. RoAR computes this signal from existing on-policy rollout groups, requiring no human-written rationales, additional sampling, or separately trained process evaluator. On five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, the 1.5B GRPO-RoAR model reaches 55.5% mean pass@1 under zero-shot evaluation using 7K training examples, exceeding GRPO and GRPO-CARE by 6.0 and 5.5 percentage points. A separate blind audit of 100 problems answered correctly by all four 1.5B models finds spurious rates of 18% for GRPO-RoAR, 32% for GRPO, 27% for GRPO-CARE, and 37% for DRA-GRPO. Our findings identify reasoning validity as an important consideration when using rollout differences to guide learning. Our code is available at https://github.com/ldi-kyunghee/RoAR.

cs.LG · cs.CL