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 12:22 — 2026-11-15 12:22(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:2611.15735

Where Is Uncertainty Observed? A Mechanistic Understanding of Uncertainty Quantification in LLMs

Xiaoyu Liang, Virginia Ceccatelli, Aliai Eusebi, Tobias Braun, Nils Loose, Carlo Malagnino, Lorenzo Cavallaro

原文摘要

Knowing when a large language model's (LLM's) response can be trusted is critical for its safe use. Uncertainty quantification (UQ) can help LLMs recognize if their responses may be unreliable. Existing taxonomies organize UQ methods by uncertainty source or estimation mechanism. They leave unresolved the question of where uncertainty is observed in the model's computation. The answer matters because the observation point determines whether an estimator has access to enough information to recover a given target, and how well it can recover it. Drawing on mechanistic interpretability, we define four mechanistic observation lenses: the structural lens observes component updates, the representational lens observes hidden states, the distributional lens observes token probabilities, and the semantical lens observes distributions over meanings. We relate these lenses through the residual stream and order them by the information they carry, which gives a principle for selecting UQ methods for different targets. We survey existing methods through the four lenses. Furthermore, we distinguish evaluation targets, criteria, and metrics to clarify different UQ evaluation protocols. Finally, we identify open problems and research directions to connect uncertainty estimation to the internal computation and downstream use of LLMs.

cs.CL · cs.AI · cs.LG

新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.02788

Rethinking Neural Decompilation: Candidate Selection as the Hidden Bottleneck

Felix Mächtle, Gautham Sriram, Manjil Neupane, Nils Loose, Thomas Eisenbarth

原文摘要

Reverse engineering obfuscated binaries is a core task in malware analysis and software security auditing. While neural decompilers based on Large Language Models (LLMs) have improved the readability and functional fidelity of recovered code over heuristic tools such as Ghidra and IDA Pro, a substantial gap remains between best-sample performance and practical single-output accuracy, particularly under code obfuscation. We study this gap through the lens of candidate generation and candidate selection. Using the LLM4Decompile architecture, we show that ground-truth tokens lie within the model's top-five next-token predictions in 95.6% of positions on average and that multi-sample decoding reaches a pass@100 of 93% on HumanEval-Decompile, indicating that correct reconstructions are typically already present in the model's sampling space. We then evaluate a generate-then-select pipeline that ranks 100 candidates per input with text-, syntax-, embedding-, consensus-, and likelihood-based selectors. Negative perplexity emerges as the strongest static selector on HumanEval-Decompile (73.3% pass@1), while execution-guided selection nearly closes the oracle gap on ExeBench (86.3% pass@1). Combined with one epoch of fine-tuning on our newly released ExeBench-Obfuscated dataset containing 362,647 obfuscated OLLVM samples, the same pipeline increases the pass@1 rate for obfuscated binaries to 88.8%, directly contradicting prior claims that released LLM4Decompile checkpoints are unsuitable for obfuscated inputs.

cs.CR · cs.AI