跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

部分采集异常
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
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-15 00:32 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-14 01:32 — 2026-11-15 01:32(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:2026-11-15 00:32最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09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6,729 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 2026-11-15 00:30(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.15974

Video-Action Models for Data-Efficient Industrial Manipulation

Eugenio Chisari, Stefanos Charalambous, Oliver Sanchez, Thomas Umbach, Michael Gentner, Fabio Quattrini, Norica Bacuieti, Sabin Grube Doiz 等 26 位作者

原文摘要

Industrial manipulation requires precise alignment and controlled handling of rigid, deformable, and flexible components. Yet, the benefits of pretrained visuomotor policies remain underexplored in settings where limited access to specialized hardware, components, and fixtures constrains demonstration collection and evaluation. Understanding task-specific data requirements is important for assessing their scalability across diverse processes on the factory floor. We investigate whether video pretraining can support reliable industrial manipulation with limited action data. We propose FLUX-mimic, a video-action model, motivated by the potential of video pretraining to capture motion and interaction patterns that enable sample-efficient training. FLUX-mimic is built on a backbone pretrained on large-scale web and industrial task data, and an action expert to generate robot trajectories. We train our policy by joint video-action training. Across four automotive manufacturing benchmark tasks and two bimanual robot platforms, FLUX-mimic outperforms all considered baselines on the dexterous robot platform and matches pi_{0.5}'s average success rate on the gripper-based robot platform. On a deformable part kitting task, FLUX-mimic reaches 77.5% success with as little as two hours of task-specific action-labeled demonstrations.

cs.RO

版本更新 · v2arXiv:2610.28083

IECG: Weakly-Supervised Interpretability-Enhancing Foundation Model for Electrocardiogram

Huynh Dang Nguyen, Trong-Thang Pham, Anh-Thuan Do, Phuong-Nhi Dinh, Brijesh Patel, Ngan Le, Van Nguyen

原文摘要

Electrocardiography (ECG) is a cornerstone of cardiac diagnosis, yet most machine learning methods for ECG analysis lack interpretability, limiting their clinical adoption. We present IECG, a weakly-supervised ECG foundation model that jointly performs diagnostic classification and abnormality localization without requiring manual abnormal region annotations, overcoming a long-standing bottleneck in interpretable ECG learning. Central to IECG is a weakly-supervised attention strategy that explicitly incorporates clinical priors by deriving abnormality heatmap pseudo-labels from established ECG clinical knowledge. These pseudo-labels guide the model's CLS-token attention through a KL-divergence loss, encouraging it to focus on diagnostically relevant waveform regions. During pretraining, IECG is jointly optimized with clinically guided attention supervision, ECG-text contrastive alignment, and report captioning objectives, enabling it to learn rich multimodal representations while producing localized waveform evidence. By explicitly aggregating features from clinically guided attention regions, IECG grounds its diagnostic predictions in interpretable waveform evidence without sacrificing classification performance. Extensive experiments demonstrate that IECG achieves state-of-the-art abnormal region localization while maintaining strong classification performance, advancing trustworthy foundation models for ECG analysis.

cs.AI

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02244

Can AI Reviewers See Your Efforts to Improve Your Paper? A Large-Scale Study of Paper Revision Trajectories

Yaochen Wang, Chenguang Wang, Ming Li, Haomin Zhuang, Xinyue Zeng, Han Chen, Kwesi Adu Cobbina, Dang Nguyen 等 11 位作者

原文摘要

AI reviewers are increasingly used to assess scientific manuscripts, yet it remains unclear whether their judgments reflect the improvements authors make through revision. We investigate this question using PaperTrajectory-2026, the 2026 release of PaperTrajectory, a dataset of 6,959 paper trajectories across five AI conferences, with automatic annotations of changes along 14 dimensions and separate judgments of overall quality. The annotations show that major improvements emphasize empirical evidence and framing, while later revisions tend toward incremental improvement. Using independent assessments of manuscript versions from eight AI reviewers, we examine whether annotated major improvements receive higher scores, which revision dimensions are associated with score changes, and whether user opinions can outweigh observed revision gains. Every reviewer leaves scores unchanged on most major improvements, and agreement on the direction of score changes is weak. Revision dimensions show some reviewer-specific associations with score increases, but provide limited predictive discrimination and no consistent guide across reviewers. Even when a revision earns a higher neutral score, a brief negative user opinion can erase or reverse that advantage, with substantial variation across reviewers. These findings show that substantive revisions are not consistently reflected in review scores and that observed scoring gains can be vulnerable to user framing, motivating assessments that connect manuscript evidence to overall judgments and remain stable when no scientific evidence changes.

cs.CL