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

+1673新增论文
+1257其中 AI 相关
+197已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-13 14:16 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-13 14:16各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-12 15:01 — 2026-11-13 15:01(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:2026-11-13 14:16最近发现新增版本:2026-11-13 14:16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6,726 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 2026-11-13 14:15(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.10175

ASCENT: Scale-Complementary External State for Frozen Long-Context Language Models

Xingjian Zhang

原文摘要

External state should become more valuable as a reader becomes more capable, yet long-context evaluations measure memory utility at a single model scale. This paper formulates scale complementarity: the absolute gain from external state increases when reader capacity and a compact state budget are jointly scaled. ASCENT realizes this principle with a target-blind causal writer, nested typed state, and a bounded query-conditioned readout; every language model remains frozen. Under log loss, the value of a nested refinement equals its target-relevant conditional information; a full factorial makes the reader-by-state interaction identifiable. Official 16K BABILong experiments show Qwen2.5 accuracy gains of 10.50, 78.88, and 82.63 percentage points at 0.5B, 1.5B, and 3B parameters, with both adjacent directional contrasts significant after family-wise correction. At 7B, Foundation accuracy rises to 33.25% while four-slot ASCENT answers every question, which caps the gain at 66.75 points; the 3B-to-7B accuracy increment is -15.88 points [-20.55, -11.20]. The accuracy-side claim is therefore established from 0.5B to 3B; the 7B conclusion rests on the non-saturated negative-log-likelihood factorial. A three-model by three-state factorial yields co-scaled negative log-likelihood gains of 0.388, 2.099, and 7.406 nats at 1.5B, 3B, and 7B; all interaction and gain contrasts retain positive simultaneous lower bounds. Five public 7B-8B readers obtain 66.75-85.63 point gains, and ASCENT exceeds task-trained retrieval checkpoints at the two larger shared scales. Controls, baselines, systems accounting, matched-hardware reproduction, and a cross-architecture sensitivity analysis accompany the experiments. The results establish scale-complementary external state under the evaluated benchmarks, metrics, and state schema.

cs.CL · cs.LG

首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.826ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

Your Reasoning Benchmark May Not Test Reasoning: Revealing Perception Bottleneck in Abstract Reasoning Benchmarks

Xinhe Wang, Jin Huang, Xingjian Zhang University of Michigan - Ann Arbor, Tianhao Wang University of California, San Diego, Jiaqi W. Ma

原文摘要

Reasoning benchmarks such as the Abstraction and Reasoning Corpus (ARC) and ARC-AGI are widely used to assess progress in artificial intelligence and are often interpreted as probes of core, so-called “fluid” reasoning abilities. Despite their apparent simplicity for humans, these tasks remain challenging for frontier vision-language models (VLMs), a gap commonly attributed to deficiencies in machine reasoning. We challenge this interpretation and hypothesize that the gap arises primarily from limitations in visual perception rather than from shortcomings in inductive reasoning.To verify this hypothesis, we introduce a two-stage experimental pipeline that explicitly separates perception and reasoning. In the perception stage, each image is independently converted into a natural-language description, while in the reasoning stage a model induces and applies rules using these descriptions. This design prevents leakage of cross-image inductive signals and isolates reasoning from perception bottlenecks. Across three ARC-style datasets, Mini-ARC, ACRE, and Bongard-LOGO, we show that the perception capability is the dominant factor underlying the observed performance gap by comparing the two-stage pipeline with against standard end-to-end one-stage evaluation. Manual inspection of reasoning traces in the VLM outputs further reveals that approximately 80 percent of model failures stem from perception errors. Together, these results demonstrate that ARC-style benchmarks conflate perceptual and reasoning challenges and that observed performance gaps may overstate deficiencies in machine reasoning. Our findings underscore the need for evaluation protocols that disentangle perception from reasoning when assessing progress in machine intelligence.

cs.CL · cs.AI · cs.CV

Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表