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 10:52 · 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 13:43 — 2026-11-15 13:43(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 10:52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 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-15 10:50(北京时间)
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.13209

ARoute: Task-Aligned Batch and Streaming Model Routing

Daofu Zhang, Qingcheng Zeng, Chunwei Liu, Fuheng Zhao

原文摘要

Language models increasingly power data-intensive applications, from semantic data processing to question answering and agentic workflows. Using frontier models for every request is prohibitively expensive, while relying only on smaller models reduces accuracy. We study model routing under a user-specified cost budget, aiming to maximize accuracy under task-specific correctness criteria. Existing routers fall short in two ways: pretrained routers rely on generic preference signals that may not reflect a task's own correctness criteria or a new model pair, and model cascades run the weaker model first on every request, adding sequential latency. We present ARoute, a task-aligned router that learns cost and accuracy signals to select a model for each request before inference. ARoute has two variants: ARoute-Batch operates on a batch of requests known in advance, routing requests with the greatest expected benefit to the stronger model subject to the budget, whereas ARoute-Stream processes requests online, using a threshold calibrated on a small validation set to satisfy the cost quota and dynamically adjusting it as the budget is consumed. For ARoute-Stream, we provide a finite-sample guarantee on expected normalized spending. We evaluate ARoute on MMLU-Pro, LiveCodeBench, SuperGPQA, and two value-filling tasks built from SWAN semantic query benchmark against other state-of-the-art approaches. At matched cost, ARoute-Batch achieves the highest mean accuracy in all 15 task-cost settings, improving over the strongest baseline by 4.1 percentage points on average and by up to 11.9 points. ARoute also completes a batch up to 2.8x faster than cascades.

cs.DB

版本更新 · v2arXiv:2605.24183

AvalancheBench:通过潜在世界恢复评估企业智能体驱动的语义查询处理

AvalancheBench: Evaluating Enterprise Agent-Driven Semantic Query Processing Through Latent World Recovery

Darek Kleczek, Fuheng Zhao, Alexander W. Lee, Julien Tissier, Pawel Liskowski, Ugur Cetintemel, Anupam Datta

AI 速读 基于摘要

提出多模态企业分析基准 AvalancheBench,用潜在世界规格生成观测数据,考察数据智能体能否在端到端分析中正确决定何时及如何使用语义算子,并量化错误在问题间的“雪崩式”传播。

cs.DB · cs.AI · cs.LG

查看原文摘要

As LLMs improve, data agents are emerging as a new interface for analytics, while semantic query processing engines use LLMs to operate over structured and unstructured data. Existing benchmarks largely evaluate agents and semantic query engines in isolation, leaving it unclear whether agents can decide when and how to use semantic operators in end-to-end analysis. We introduce AvalancheBench, a multimodal enterprise analytics benchmark that generates observed data from latent world specifications and evaluates data agents on their ability to recover that world. The benchmark's 3 validated tasks contain 58 questions spanning text, images, and documents. Questions are provided together as a multi-part analytical brief and may share intermediate results, exposing the avalanche effect: errors can propagate through legitimate dependencies, and inappropriate reuse can cause otherwise unrelated questions to fail. AvalancheBench measures analytical fidelity, monetary cost, and capability-adjusted token cost (CATC), a new metric that weights token use by model capability to separate technical efficiency from provider pricing. We evaluate 5 model-harness configurations across 3 agent harnesses using Snowflake Cortex AISQL as the engine, with the best configuration reaching macro analytical fidelity of 0.82. Agents fail primarily in constructing the analysis: failing to recover facts that require semantic computation costs 45.1% of lost points, yet incorrect operator outputs account for only 2.5%, versus 36.3% from agents misusing or avoiding semantic operators. Misinterpreting requirements costs the most, at 51.5%. Errors also spread between questions: 29% of lost points come from reusing another question's results. Finally, monetary cost and CATC produce different Pareto frontiers, distinguishing economically attractive configurations from those that are technically resource efficient.