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 05:33 — 2026-11-16 05:33（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

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 2026-11-16 01:33（北京时间）
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2611.10802

Evaluating Jev on Arabic: Comparing Decision Models and LLMs Across Arabic Tasks and Dialects

Hossam Elsafty, Tobias Deußer, Lorenz Sparrenberg, Rajkumar Ramamurthy, Rafet Sifa

原文摘要

How does Jev compare with other systems on Arabic tasks, and how does its performance change between Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and dialects? We evaluate 67 systems, including 47 decision models and 20 large language models (LLMs), on 43 tasks across 9 task families using a shared zero-shot protocol. The Arabic-focused frozen suite includes English controls in three parallel resources, which we also remove in a separate descriptive comparison. Jev 1.14.0 achieves a mean task-primary metric of 69.24 on a scale multiplied by 100, compared with 68.77 for Jev 1.13.0 and 71.81 for Gemma-4-31B, the highest-scoring system on this aggregate. Removing the recorded English controls, repeated cross-task items or both leaves the full system order unchanged. Relative performance and gains between Jev versions vary across task families. In content-matched comparisons within Jev 1.14.0, pooled dialect-minus-MSA accuracy gaps range from -7.94 to -0.35 percentage points across four datasets; dialect-specific results show larger variation, and SIB-200's source-clustered interval includes zero. Paired contrasts with Jev 1.13.0, Gemma-4-31B and Jais-2-8B show a larger Palestinian banking penalty for Jev 1.14.0 than for either LLM under simultaneous uncertainty; the other gap contrasts remain inconclusive. These descriptive findings show why aggregate scores should be read alongside task-family results, coverage and matched language comparisons. They do not establish a general model ranking for dialect robustness or explain the causes of the observed gaps.

cs.CL · cs.AI

查看论文
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
新论文 · v1arXiv:2611.07736

Extending Reasoning in Typed Decision Models via Looping

David Berghaus, Arber Zela, Behzad Shomali, Markus Frey, Mehdi Ali, Rafet Sifa, Volkan Cevher

原文摘要

Typed decision models choose among a fixed set of answer options in a single forward pass, so unlike generative language models they cannot spend more test-time compute on hard inputs by generating more tokens. Looping a block of layers offers this compute in latent space without adding parameters, but prior work found no gain from loops retrofitted into conventionally pretrained models. We show that such loops help when trained together with the decision model. Our method, RELOAD (retrofitted loops for adaptive decisions), fine-tunes a pretrained encoder or decoder with a damped loop over its middle block and a lightweight controller picks the number of passes adaptively for each input. Across six models from 0.4B to 4B parameters, looping improves both accuracy and calibration, mostly on problems that need longer chains of reasoning than any seen in training, where encoders gain up to 23 points. Neither matched training compute nor more data closes this gap, and separate layers for each pass come close only with nearly twice the parameters. The controller keeps most of the gain at about three quarters of the compute.

cs.CL · cs.AI · cs.LG

查看论文
arXiv ↗PDF ↗
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2609.37647

Evaluating and Benchmarking the System One Model Jev

Tobias Deußer, Rajkumar Ramamurthy, Lorenz Sparrenberg, Rafet Sifa

原文摘要

Jev is a commercial "System One" model from TypeSafe AI that does not generate text: given a state and typed questions, it returns a choice from fixed options, a position on a rubric, or the probability that a statement is true, with probabilities described as calibrated. Such models target small decisions in information access pipelines. We evaluate Jev (jev-1.13.0) zero-shot on 37 datasets, from classification and routing to moderation and rubric scoring, with one frozen template per dataset and full evaluation splits: 346,009 requests for under US$10. For reference, we score Qwen3.8-27B and Gemma-4-E4B on identical requests via their exact option probabilities. Jev reaches 95-99% accuracy on IMDB, SST-2, HellaSwag and ARC, beats Qwen on 27 of 37 datasets, with none of Qwen's leads outside the bootstrap intervals, and Gemma on all 37, and its choice probabilities are well calibrated and support selective prediction. All three models degrade on low-resource languages, fine-grained or noisy labels, and rubric-based judgments, and binary probabilities need tuned thresholds, which raise micro-F1 on UNFAIR-ToS from 0.50 to 0.75. Jev answers MMLU's calculation-heavy questions more accurately than other MMLU questions, unlike both open models; probes rule out shallow memorization but not memorized question-answer pairs. Extending the protocol to sequential decisions, where the model chooses the next action at every step, Jev completes 35% of ALFWorld's unseen tasks, 42% of 90 TextWorld games and 21% of BabyAI-Text missions, chooses the optimal Blackjack action in 90% of decisions, and on FrozenLake almost never moves away from the goal to avoid holes. It often repeats actions that had no effect. Qwen completes more ALFWorld and TextWorld games than Jev (54.5% and 51.1%) but shares its failures on BabyAI-Text and FrozenLake. We release the code, harness and all raw responses.

cs.CL · cs.AI

查看论文
arXiv ↗PDF ↗