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 20:40 — 2026-11-04 20:40(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 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序等待首次采集
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.34759

From Belief Inference to Task Action: A Multi-Level Evaluation of Theory of Mind on Verifiable Tasks

Zhenshuai Yin, Yongxin Guo, Mingda Zhang, Zhongze Luo, Haoyue Liu, Lianmin Zhang, Xiaoying Tang

Effective collaboration requires language models to understand what others know and believe, and to act accordingly. Models that assume others share their information may omit necessary communication and undermine coordination. Many theory-of-mind (ToM) benchmarks assess mental-state inference through story questions, but correct answers do not establish that models can use these judgments in subsequent tasks. We introduce a multi-level evaluation built on existing, verifiable tasks. We extend household collaboration and calendar scheduling with asymmetric information while retaining their original constraints and validators. Independent interfaces assess world understanding, information access, beliefs, decisions, and execution. Controls supply personal evidence or correct beliefs to distinguish state recovery from state use. Across six model configurations, these abilities diverge. On matched scheduling cases, Claude recovers all agent beliefs correctly but produces subjectively optimal plans in only 67.9% of cases. In household collaboration, supplying beliefs raises Qwen-27B success from 55.0% to 75.0%, yet Qwen-4B answers every fixed supplied-belief source question correctly while completing only 20.0% of the corresponding continuation condition. These results show why ToM evaluation must connect perspective inference to independently verified decisions and task consequences.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
新论文 · v1arXiv:2610.34737

LADDER: Diagnosing Domain-Level Self-Assessment Under Noisy Feedback

Zhenshuai Yin, Jianshu Liang, Xuyue Xiong, Yongxin Guo, Mingda Zhang, Zhongze Luo, Haoyue Liu, Lianmin Zhang 等 9 位作者

Knowing when they are reliable is essential for language models to support human-AI collaboration. Yet interaction feedback is not always complete or correct, and may mislead models' understanding of their own capabilities. We introduce LADDER to study how language models assess themselves under unreliable feedback. Our findings show that models can accurately report supplied performance information while still struggling to form trustworthy self-assessments from interaction experience. Apparently accurate assessments can obscure capability differences and do not necessarily predict future task performance. These findings suggest that trustworthy self-assessment should be evaluated against observed task performance and its predictive value. Our study provides empirical evidence of the limits of model self-knowledge and a basis for evaluating capability awareness in reliable human-AI collaboration.

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.CL
arXiv ↗PDF ↗