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

+3114新增论文
+2819其中 AI 相关
+88已有论文修订
+99新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-06 00:46 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 12:13各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-05 01:39 — 2026-11-06 01:39(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 00:46最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 12:13库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-05 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。

15,949 已收录论文13,765 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 3 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-06 00:44(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.06687

LifeVal: Evaluating AI Model Performance on Personalized Agentic Consumer Tasks

Jenny Yang, Elizabeth Proehl, Anjan Bharadwaj, Emily Fan, Charlotte Cole, James Kim, Noam Brown, Phoebe Thacker 等 10 位作者

We introduce LifeVal, a benchmark evaluating AI model performance on personalized agentic consumer tasks. LifeVal covers the most valuable life tasks that a personalized digital superassistant could automate, representing over 1.7 trillion US dollars in annual willingness-to-pay across 148 consumer task categories (e.g., managing finances, moving apartments, searching for a job, finding childcare). To construct our activity distribution, we conducted a new survey of willingness-to-pay for a digital superassistant across a demographically representative sample of over 3,800 consumers, cross-referencing our results against the American Time Use Survey (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025) and the Multinational Time Use Study (Fisher et al., 2025). For the most valuable consumer activities, we recruited task creators to create AI evaluation tasks personalized using real ChatGPT conversations and memories, reference files, and personal context. Task creators had to pass our expertise threshold (including personally completing the task multiple times and seeing the results through in their real lives for over a year) and also write a rubric, ensuring that our evaluation measured the best personalized completion for that task. All tasks had to pass at least three rounds of human quality-control before acceptance into our final evaluation sets.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.AI
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
版本更新 · v3arXiv:2504.01848Berkeley BAIR

PaperBench:评估 AI 复现 AI 研究的能力

PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Research

Giulio Starace, Oliver Jaffe, Dane Sherburn, James Aung, Jun Shern Chan, Leon Maksin, Rachel Dias, Evan Mays 等 13 位作者

AI 速览:提出 PaperBench 基准,用分层评分细则和 LLM 评审自动评估 AI 智能体从零复现 20 篇 ICML 2024 Spotlight/Oral 论文的能力。

We introduce PaperBench, a benchmark evaluating the ability of AI agents to replicate state-of-the-art AI research. Agents must replicate 20 ICML 2024 Spotlight and Oral papers from scratch, including understanding paper contributions, developing a codebase, and successfully executing experiments. For objective evaluation, we develop rubrics that hierarchically decompose each replication task into smaller sub-tasks with clear grading criteria. In total, PaperBench contains 8,316 individually gradable tasks. Rubrics are co-developed with the author(s) of each ICML paper for accuracy and realism. To enable scalable evaluation, we also develop an LLM-based judge to automatically grade replication attempts against rubrics, and assess our judge's performance by creating a separate benchmark for judges. We evaluate several frontier models on PaperBench, finding that the best-performing tested agent, Claude 3.5 Sonnet (New) with open-source scaffolding, achieves an average replication score of 21.0%. Finally, we recruit top ML PhDs to attempt a subset of PaperBench, finding that models do not yet outperform the human baseline. We open-source our code (https://github.com/openai/preparedness) to facilitate future research in understanding the AI engineering capabilities of AI agents.

cs.AI · cs.CL
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
版本更新 · v6arXiv:2410.07095Google Research

MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering

Jun Shern Chan, Neil Chowdhury, Oliver Jaffe, James Aung, Dane Sherburn, Evan Mays, Giulio Starace, Kevin Liu 等 12 位作者

We introduce MLE-bench, a benchmark for measuring how well AI agents perform at machine learning engineering. To this end, we curate 75 ML engineering-related competitions from Kaggle, creating a diverse set of challenging tasks that test real-world ML engineering skills such as training models, preparing datasets, and running experiments. We establish human baselines for each competition using Kaggle's publicly available leaderboards. We use open-source agent scaffolds to evaluate several frontier language models on our benchmark, finding that the best-performing setup--OpenAI's o1-preview with AIDE scaffolding--achieves at least the level of a Kaggle bronze medal in 16.9% of competitions. In addition to our main results, we investigate various forms of resource scaling for AI agents and the impact of contamination from pre-training. We open-source our benchmark code (github.com/openai/mle-bench/) to facilitate future research in understanding the ML engineering capabilities of AI agents.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL
arXiv ↗PDF ↗