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

+2新增论文
+2其中 AI 相关
+0已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-13 00:53 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-12 06:37各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-12 01:04 — 2026-11-13 01:04(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:2026-11-13 00:53最近发现新增版本:2026-11-12 06:37库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-11 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。

21,675 已收录论文18,323 AI 相关6,056 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 2026-11-13 00:50(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.14309

MMDM:衡量大规模多任务决策能力

MMDM: Measuring Massive Multitask Decision Making

Junhao Shen, Qing Zong, Yue Guo, Zhanqiu Zhang, Yiwen Guo, Hong Cheng

AI 速读 基于摘要

作者提出包含5,448道题、16类任务的大规模多任务决策基准MMDM,用于评测System-1决策模型在长上下文、大选项空间和复杂逻辑依赖下的表现。

cs.LG · cs.CL

查看原文摘要

System-1 Decision Models directly make structured probabilistic decisions over query-specified options given a state in a single forward pass, without autoregressively generating reasoning trajectories or textual responses. Recent evaluations cover diverse tasks but often rely on existing benchmarks, where prior exposure to test material can obscure generalization. Moreover, real-world decision making often involves long contexts, large option spaces, and complex logical dependencies, challenges that existing benchmarks do not adequately capture together. Thus, we introduce MMDM (Massive Multitask Decision Making), a benchmark of 5,448 high-quality questions across 16 task categories, combining newly constructed tasks with source-grounded recompositions and rewrites for single-select, multi-select, and soft-label decision making in fresh contexts. It covers realistic scenarios such as agent state tracking, tool and skill selection, preference judgments, and rubric scoring, with option spaces ranging from 2 to 1,024 and inputs extending to 64,817 tokens. With MMDM, we conduct a comprehensive quantitative evaluation of 28 decision models, showing that many perform well on common knowledge yet struggle with interdependent options, constrained decisions, and multi-select tasks. For example, Perplexity Decider-V1.2 reaches 78.75% Hard Single-select Accuracy on world knowledge, but only 53.95% on option logic and 47.95% on constraint planning, while the best Hard Multi-select Accuracy across all models is 36.81%. These results highlight joint reasoning, constraint-aware selection, and complete multi-select recovery as key priorities for decision model development, with MMDM providing a testbed for measuring this progress.