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
+0已有论文修订
+93新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-16 01:34 · 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 2026-11-15 02:37 — 2026-11-16 02:37(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:2026-11-16 01:34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 2026-11-16 01:33(北京时间)
版本更新 · v3arXiv:2610.19148

Program Learning with Verifiable Rewards: Distilling Expert Traces into Programs

Vishvesh Bhat, Muhammad Ahmed Mohsin, Asad Aali

原文摘要

Small language models struggle with tool-use tasks that require following multi-step procedures. Whether these failures reflect limited capability or missing procedural knowledge remains unclear. We introduce Program Learning with Verifiable Rewards (PLVR), which distils expert traces into reusable programs without updating model weights. Frontier models turn recurring operations in the traces into typed primitives and rules, and search assembles them using reference actions and training-task checks. A small frozen model executes the primitives, with deterministic verifiers checking their outputs. The resulting program guides a student's reasoning or checks its proposed actions. We evaluate the same program across students on $τ^2$-Bench Retail and Telecom and LiveMCPBench, using synthetic training tasks and unseen benchmark test tasks. On Telecom, PLVR raises an 8B model's success rate from 43.0% to 91.2%, while larger students reach up to 94.4%, compared with 57.9% for the best baseline. On Retail and LiveMCPBench, PLVR is competitive with the best baselines, although tool search remains more dependent on the student model. These results support program learning as a way to transfer expert procedures across frozen models, trading additional inference computation for more reliable tool use.

cs.AI · cs.SC

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.14736

When Should Semantic Priors Enter Partially-Identified Causal Discovery?

Muhammad Ahmed Mohsin, Saad Bin Ather, Valentin Six, Lancelot Da Costa, Tommaso Salvatori, Bernhard Scholkopf

原文摘要

Observational causal discovery often leaves causal di- rections unresolved or unstable. Large language mod- els (LLMs) can provide semantic information to resolve these directions, but incorrect proposals can exclude the true causal graph and invalidate downstream inference. We study three separate decisions: where to allocate semantic queries, which proposals to admit, and which causal graphs to retain. Our framework distinguishes population non-identifiability from finite-sample insta- bility, evaluates semantic orientation against statistical and random controls, and examines calibrated admis- sion and error-tolerant DAG retention. Experiments across benchmark networks show that semantic infor- mation improves recovery over coin-flip orientations, but targeting unstable edges has no established ad- vantage over matched-random allocation. The tested admission certificate cannot support nontrivial admis- sion with the available calibration tasks. Moreover, downstream retention depends on reference adequacy: learned references contain the true DAG in only three of 80 planned tasks. These findings separate the value of semantic information from the reliability of its alloca- tion, admission, and retention, and identify calibration size and reference adequacy as key limitations.

cs.AI

版本更新 · v4arXiv:2511.20836

Structured Prompts Improve Evaluation of Language Models

Asad Aali, Muhammad Ahmed Mohsin, Vasiliki Bikia, Arnav Singhvi, Richard Gaus, Suhana Bedi, Hejie Cui, Miguel Fuentes 等 18 位作者

原文摘要

As language models (LMs) are increasingly adopted across domains, high-quality benchmarking frameworks are essential for guiding deployment decisions. However, frameworks such as Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) typically evaluate models under a single static prompt configuration, even though model behavior depends strongly on prompt choice. As a result, reported scores can reflect prompt choice as much as model capability. Declarative prompting frameworks, such as DSPy, offer a scalable way to operationalize this evaluation protocol by evaluating models under structured prompting strategies rather than static prompts. Here, we conduct a reproducible DSPy+HELM benchmarking study and quantify how prompt choice impacts benchmark outcomes. Using five prompting methods, we evaluate four frontier and two open-source LMs across seven benchmarks against HELM baseline scores and find that prompt choice can materially impact leaderboards. Structured prompting improves performance (by 6% on average), alters comparisons (leaderboard rankings shift on $5/7$ benchmarks); chain-of-thought provides the strongest cost-performance tradeoff while more advanced optimizers offer smaller additional gains. Beyond the known intuition that prompts affect outputs, our benchmarking study integrates structured prompting into an established evaluation framework and quantifies how prompt choice alone impacts leaderboards. We open-source (i) DSPy+HELM Evaluation (https://github.com/stanford-crfm/helm/pull/3893) and (ii) Prompt Optimization Pipeline (https://github.com/StanfordMIMI/dspy-helm).

cs.CL · cs.AI · cs.LG