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
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描：2026-11-15 19:05 · 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 21:06 — 2026-11-15 21:06（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 19:05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

研究日报 / 周报 →按信源浏览 →

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 19:03（北京时间）
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2610.27908

Polarity Blindness in LLM Safety: A Systematic Study of Negation, Antonym Substitution, and Adversarial Framing

Diego Miguel Lozano, Erik Derner, Juan Antonio Pérez-Ortiz, Nuria Oliver

原文摘要

Negation remains a persistent challenge for language models across NLP tasks and modalities. We show that this weakness can undermine LLM safety guardrails through a structural vulnerability we term polarity blindness: the failure to recognize harmful intent after polarity-altering linguistic transformations. We study two forms of polarity inversion: grammatical negation and antonym replacement, and use synonym replacement as a polarity-preserving control. We further test whether an adversarial textual wrapper amplifies these failures. Using a 260-prompt benchmark across 10 state-of-the-art LLMs and 3 languages (English, Spanish, Czech), stratified by harmfulness potential and evaluated on a validated 0-5 harm scale, we find that polarity blindness affects most evaluated models, with mean harm scores reaching 4.12 for the most vulnerable model. The effect persists across typologically differing negation systems, suggesting that polarity blindness reflects a broader limitation in semantic robustness rather than a language- or grammar-specific failure.

cs.CL · cs.AI

查看论文
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.07792

Thinking Is Not Writing: Designing AI Chatbots to Connect Reasoning and Revision

Lucile Favero, Tanja Käser, Juan Antonio Pérez-Ortiz, Nuria Oliver

原文摘要

Supporting students' argumentative writing with AI requires connecting reflection to their revision processes. We present Maike, a Socratic chatbot supporting writing through argument diagnosis, targeted questioning, and a student model across Think and Write modes. In a classroom study, 65 secondary-school students used Maike or a control chatbot sharing the interface, language model, and Think/Write modes. Approximately 40% of students improved their essay scores. However, Maike users engaged more in idea-level dialogue (56% vs. 44%) and moved iteratively between discussion and editing. Transitions from ideas discussed in dialogue to revisions were positively associated with score gains. These findings suggest a design target for AI writing support: coordinating reflection with revision. We contribute an architecture for supporting argumentative reasoning without generating essay text and an approach linking interaction patterns to writing processes and outcomes. As AI becomes embedded in classrooms, understanding these connections is essential to assessing (and designing for) its educational value.

cs.HC

查看论文
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
版本更新 · v3arXiv:2607.02325

Personality Without Persons? A Psychometric Critique of Big Five Testing in Large Language Models

Kim Zierahn, Cristina Cachero, Anna Korhonen, Nuria Oliver

原文摘要

Human personality inventories are increasingly used to characterize large language models (LLMs), compare systems, and inform downstream governance claims. Yet, these inventories were developed and validated for humans, and it remains unclear whether they are valid for non-human systems. We present a systematic psychometric evaluation of Big Five personality measurement in LLMs. We ask three research questions: Do Big Five inventories a) appropriately describe LLMs, b) capture meaningful differences between models, and c) reflect internal factors consistent with human personality? We assess the content validity of five candidate Big Five inventories and administer the best-performing inventory to N = 264 LLMs spanning 50 model families. Our findings are threefold. First, Big Five items adapted for LLMs achieve acceptable content validity, whereas the original human-developed items do not. Second, Big Five inventories fail to capture meaningful differences across LLMs: between-model variance accounts for only 7% - 17% of the total score variance. Third, LLMs responses do not reproduce the canonical Big Five five-factor structure of human personality, with four of the five personality facets collapsing into one (r >= .90). Moreover, comparisons between base and instruction-tuned variants suggest that alignment training shifts Big Five scores toward socially desirable profiles. These findings demonstrate that Big Five inventories do not measure a construct equivalent to human personality in LLMs. Thus, using human personality frameworks to characterize, benchmark, compare, or govern LLMs risks producing misleading conclusions. We highlight the need for evaluation frameworks that are specifically designed and validated for LLMs, rather than transferring human psychological constructs without first establishing their validity.

cs.HC

查看论文
arXiv ↗PDF ↗