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

+6108新增论文
+5221其中 AI 相关
+108已有论文修订
+122新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-05 06:01 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 04:38各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-04 06:08 — 2026-11-05 06:08(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:2026-11-05 06:01最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 04:38库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-04 08:00

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。

14,785 已收录论文12,896 AI 相关3,088 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 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-05 05:58(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.04100

The Agent Board: Kanban for Machines; Durable Coordination for Agents That Outlive the Conversation

Tyler Hunt, Donald Nguyen, Gurbinder Gill

Harnesses for large language models have converged on a single-threaded shape: one agent, one history, one machine, one sitting. That shape fails work that spans many agents, outlives any one model call, or waits on systems that are not agents. We describe the Agent Board, the coordination substrate in the Corvic harness. The board is a durable, shared table of semi-semantic tasks: a few exact fields the system routes on, and a free-form body that only language models read. Agents post tasks, watch tasks, and block on them, ending their turn and holding no process until a matching post wakes them. A system agent, the Board Keeper, acts as the interrupt handler for the board: it carries events from non-agent parts of the harness onto the board, matches them to waiting tasks by reading their prose, and allocates new agents for tasks that name a kind of agent rather than an instance. Loadable coordination policy kernels give statuses and roles meaning for a given pattern of work, without the board enforcing them. The design mirrors the kanban board a human team puts on a wall. We argue it is what persistent agent products such as Meta Muse, OpenAI dots and SpaceXAI Grok Bot need once an agent must wait, hand off work, or work with agents from another vendor. We view the board as an operating-system scheduler for agents and state where the analogy breaks. We separate what the mechanism guarantees from what it leaves to convention, and report a trace from a live board and three small simulated pilots. In the pilots, the wait cost of the board was flat in wait length while naive polling grew about 165-fold, but a plain external watcher was cheaper than the board. The Board Keeper matched prose waiters with no false wakes but missed 3.6 percent of real wakes.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.AI · cs.DC
arXiv ↗PDF ↗