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 09:49 · 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 10:42 — 2026-11-15 10:42(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 09:49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 09:48(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2609.34480

When Does an Image Determine the Answer? Benchmarking Visual Answerability across Charts and Scenes

Sungguk Cha, Mintae Kim, Youngsub Han, Byoung-Ki Jeon, Sangyeob Lee

原文摘要

Reliable visual question answering requires correct answers when evidence is sufficient and abstention when it is not. We introduce a benchmark of 3,000 question groups: 1,000 each from PlotQA charts, CLEVR rendered scenes, and GQA photographs. Each group keeps the question fixed across original, answer-preserving, and evidence-removing images; charts and CLEVR also include answer-changing edits. Models receive each image independently. A group succeeds only if every supported answer and every required abstention is correct. For charts and CLEVR, executable witnesses establish ambiguity under the declared task semantics: two admissible complete charts or scenes give different answers but yield the same masked observation. GQA scoring compares source labels with a permissive rule that also credits masked-image answers compatible with the full-image reference. Across 72,000 responses from six model configurations, the best complete-question success is 57.0% on charts, 43.5% on CLEVR, and 33.7% on GQA under source labels. On charts, the strongest configuration makes correct answer-or-abstain decisions on 96.2% of individual images and on all five images of 83.5% of questions. Requiring correct answers lowers success to 57.0%: in 26.5% of all chart questions, every decision is correct but at least one answer is wrong. Adding answer correctness also reverses a chart ranking based on decision accuracy. Evaluating all response obligations together reveals failures that per-image decision accuracy conceals.

cs.CV

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.05798

Consistency Is Not Understanding: Orbit Audits for Neural Field Weight Readers

Sungguk Cha, Mintae Kim, Youngsub Han, Byoung-Ki Jeon, Sangyeob Lee

原文摘要

Recognizing visual content from neural-network weights requires separating functional information from arbitrary parameter coordinates. We audit this separation with hidden-neuron permutations and positive ReLU rescalings that preserve the represented function. The study contains 480 independently fitted shape fields and 1,000 MNIST fields, with transformed copies grouped by origin. On shape recognition, a statistics reader falls from \ShapeRawStats\% to \ShapeJointStats\% accuracy under joint transformations; a normalized set reader retains \ShapeNormSet\% with unchanged predictions. Four small frozen language models obtain \LMRange\% raw accuracy with next-token scoring. A separate four-configuration reasoning experiment with 1,920 scored sessions obtains \FrontRawRange\% raw accuracy with generated answers, while fresh identical raw prompts disagree on \FrontRawRepeatRange\% of origins. Canonicalization makes equivalent prompts identical, but this neither establishes recognition nor guarantees identical generated responses. Joint correctness/agreement metrics, semantic-cue controls, fresh repeats, and exact-rational rounding bounds separate these failure modes. The result is an inspectable evaluation protocol for visual weight readers, with claims restricted to the tested fields, prompts, and execution configurations.

cs.AI