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 21:43 · 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 22:07 — 2026-11-09 22:07(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 21:43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 3 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 21:40(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.07683

ReferClaw: Disambiguating User Intent for Egocentric Assistance

Hangyu Qin, Junbin Xiao, Angela Yao

原文摘要

Users of egocentric AI assistants often ask short, ambiguous questions whose intended referents cannot be uniquely resolved from video and dialogue history. For example, "Where did I leave it?" may refer to several previously handled objects. Existing VideoQA systems typically commit to a single interpretation, risking plausible but intention-misaligned answers. We introduce ReferClaw, an agentic framework that formulates egocentric streaming QA as an interactive process: the assistant asks clarifying questions to resolve user intent before answering. Three cooperating agents identify candidate interpretations, request clarification, and generate answers grounded in the resolved intent and visual evidence. A bounded, cost-aware policy balances expected information gain against user effort while limiting clarification turns and question complexity. Referclaw learns from interaction through intent-specific skill updates and process-reward-guided policy optimization with agent-level credit assignment. Evaluations on augmented egocentric QA benchmarks demonstrate improved answer accuracy and joint answer-and-grounding performance over existing baselines, alongside zero-shot transfer across datasets. These findings support interactive clarification as a practical approach to resolving online user intent in egocentric streaming assistance.

cs.CV · cs.AI · cs.MA

版本更新 · v2arXiv:2610.31066

Dual Exam: Controlled Evaluation of Multimodal Agents and World Models

Zhefan Rao, Meng Chu, Xuan Billy Zhang, Jingfan Chen, Guohao Cai, Runyi Li, Shiyi Du, Xu Huang 等 92 位作者

原文摘要

World Models (WMs) can support Multimodal Agents (MAs) through simulated experience, while Agent trajectories can inform World Model refinement. Evaluating this interaction requires separate evidence about action selection and state evolution. We introduce Dual Exam, which tests Agents under fixed environment response mechanisms and World Models under fixed action interventions across physical, digital, social, and scientific domains. The Agent track compares 10 configurations on 1,088 items in 15 reporting categories. The World Model track contains 400 cases across eight scenarios; 15 configurations have full coverage and one covers six scenarios. GPT 6 Astra leads the case-weighted Agent Index at 31.3, and GPT-Image-2 leads the full-coverage WM Overall at 21.7. These scores use different tasks and metrics and are not directly comparable. A 150-case pilot of one coupled pairing records zero task successes and motivates component-level diagnosis. Results reveal uneven task performance and failures to preserve task-relevant state. Their value for predicting coupled success or sustained reciprocal learning remains to be established.

cs.AI

首次观测 · 记录 #1ACL Anthology · ACL 2026:acl:2026.acl-long.1828ACL Anthology · ACL 2026

MARCH: Multi-Agent Reinforced Check for Hallucination

Zhuo Li The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Yupeng Zhang Alibaba Group, Pengyu Cheng Alibaba Group, Jiajun Song Beijing Institute for General Artificial Intelligence, Mengyu Zhou Alibaba Group, Hao Li, Shujie Hu, Yu Qin 等 11 位作者

原文摘要

Hallucination remains a critical bottleneck for large language models (LLMs), undermining their reliability in real-world applications, especially in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems. While existing hallucination detection methods employ LLM-as-a-judge to verify LLM outputs against retrieved evidence, they suffer from inherent confirmation bias, where the verifier inadvertently reproduces the errors of the original generation. To address this, we introduce Multi-Agent Reinforced self-Check for Hallucination (MARCH), a framework that enforces rigorous factual alignment by leveraging deliberate information asymmetry. MARCH orchestrates a collaborative pipeline of three specialized agents: a Solver, a Proposer, and a Checker. The Solver generates an initial RAG response, which the Proposer decomposes into claim-level verifiable atomic propositions. Crucially, the Checker validates these propositions against retrieved evidence in isolation, deprived of the Solver’s original output. This well-crafted information asymmetry scheme breaks the cycle of self-confirmation bias. By training this pipeline with multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL), we enable the agents to co-evolve and optimize factual adherence. Extensive experiments across hallucination benchmarks demonstrate that MARCH substantially reduces hallucination rates. Notably, an 8B-parameter LLM equipped with MARCH achieves performance competitive with powerful closed-source models. MARCH paves a scalable path for factual self-improvement of LLMs through co-evolution. The code is at https://github.com/Qwen-Applications/MARCH.

cs.CL · cs.MA

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