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。

采集已暂停
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+0新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:等待完成 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-02 00:39各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-03 14:04 — 2026-11-04 14:04(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:尚未完成最近发现新增版本:2026-11-02 00:39库内论文最新更新时间:2026-10-30 01:59

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。

8,677 已收录论文7,675 AI 相关1,866 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。

找到 3 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序等待首次采集
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.39435

Verifiable LLM-Guided Focal SMT Solving for Quantified Arrays

Kunhang Lv, Rui Han, Fuqi Jia, Yuhang Dong, Feifei Ma, Jian Zhang

Large language models can often identify useful semantic structure in formal artifacts, but their outputs cannot be trusted as proofs or solver decisions. We study whether LLMs can instead guide formal reasoning systems through a narrow, solver-verifiable interface. We instantiate this idea in quantified array SMT solving, where modern instantiation-based techniques can fail when key ground terms and equalities are hidden by auxiliary variables, axiom guards, and nested array terms. We observe that many instances are largely driven by a small set of focal ground terms or constraints, similar to the backdoor sets in SAT solving. Building on this, we present LinguaArray, a framework where an LLM proposes a small Semantic Focus Set (ground terms/constraints), while a conventional SMT solver remains the sole proof engine and certifies all results. LinguaArray uses these LLM-suggested, solver-validated finite sets to significantly enhance solver capability, solving additional satisfiable and unsatisfiable instances that the backend alone fails to solve. It interacts within a finite time and then falls back to the backend solver to mitigate potential regressions. Evaluation on 1015 SMT-LIB instances across five logics under 1200s timeout (including LLM latency) shows that LinguaArray solves up to 69.1% of instances and increases solved-instance counts by 105%--397% over the corresponding backends.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.AI
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.34968

Guarded Agent-in-the-Loop Residual Adaptation for Evolving Wind Power Regimes

Yuhang Dong, Min Xia, Jinghong Li, Yue Dai, Xinyue Wang, Shi Liang

Wind power forecasting models are often deployed as fixed temporal backbones, but the errors they make can vary across meteorological regimes such as cold waves, heat-and-calm periods, productive typhoon, and destructive storms. We present a guarded Agent-in-the-loop residual adaptation framework that leaves the temporal backbone unchanged and adapts only a small set of scene-conditioned residual experts. An Agent layer interprets external scene information, identifies the current regime, selects residual experts, and applies a correction only when recent observed errors support it. New experts enter the pool after they outperform their initializations on a validation set, keeping model growth under explicit control. Backbone-only and Agent-enhanced forecasts are compared at lead times of 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 across nine time-series backbones. Across these runs, the guarded framework lowers both MAE and RMSE for all 45 backbone-horizon combinations, with average MAE reductions ranging from 11.21% to 20.26% across backbones. Online-selection baselines, component ablations, and routing analyses identify the roles of residual experts, scene-aware routing, and the online acceptance rule. Candidate-scene runs evaluate the promotion path under controlled conditions; long-term unattended deployment was not evaluated.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.MA
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.34941

Stop or Clarify? Experience-Conditioned Active Fact Verification

Yuhang Dong, Jinghong Li, Xinyue Wang, Yuanning Cui

Fact-verification benchmarks score the final label, while an interactive verifier must first decide whether the available evidence is sufficient. We focus on that intermediate Stop-or-Clarify Decision. Uncertainty alone is insufficient, because the benefit of another evidence-acquisition step is unknown before the step is taken. Sequential Experience-Adaptive Clarification (SEAC) wraps a fixed verifier with a lightweight evidence-acquisition policy. For each claim, SEAC retrieves evidence, runs the verifier, forms a label-free decision state, and combines stop risk with an observational clarification-utility estimate from earlier executed trajectories. Clarification is requested only when this score exceeds the action cost and decision threshold. On SciFact, LIAR, and FEVER, SEAC improves mean accuracy and macro-F1 over the compared fact-verification and active-retrieval baselines. Equal-budget and formula-level diagnostics support selective clarification as a contributor to the gain, while the small SciFact split leaves its paired improvement inconclusive.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.AI
arXiv ↗PDF ↗