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 18:02 · 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 18:49 — 2026-11-15 18:49(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 18:02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 18:01(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2609.30012

Low-Cost Assays for Measuring Model Behavior Across Vendors and Releases

Tapan Parikh

原文摘要

Language models advise people, keep them company, and write software while they sleep. Measuring what they do is hard: behavior has to be sampled repeatedly across models, prompts and releases, most of it lives in unstructured text that has to be coded before it can be counted, and the result has to be legible and rigorous enough to meaningfully compare models and vendors. To address these constraints, we present a simple, cheap, scalable, and replicable model for studying model behavior. Each study is a frozen, public stimulus run identically on a cross-vendor panel, at a few dollars per model or less. Each reads its transcripts one of three ways, chosen by how much interpretation the behavior needs: exact match on a clamped reply, a codebook applied by LLM judges whose agreement with a human coder is reported per code, and an instrumented environment that records what an agent did independently of what it said. Run across four years of model releases from both frontier and open-source labs, these instruments find four things. Convergence: asked to pick a word, 27 of 44 models answer serendipity at least once in four tries. Resistance: a trailing "right?" moves endorsement by up to 32 points, and the sign flips from sycophantic to resistant as generations advance, keyed to the tag's surface form. House: whether a model holds a position under pressure tracks its generation, and how it holds tracks the lab that built it. Account: told to do something the documentation in their repository contradicts, some coding agents never went along silently and others always did, and the same model can change with the harness it runs in. Re-run on every release, batteries like these track how behavior is changing across vendors and over time.

cs.CL · cs.AI

版本更新 · v3arXiv:2609.25447

Conduct Under Pressure: What Sixty Language Models Do When a User Pushes

Tapan Parikh

原文摘要

We study what LLMs do when a user applies pressure in an uncomfortable situation: a user insists, begs, flatters or grieves, and the model gives up a correct fact, writes a document it should refuse, or cheers a plan that will cost the user money, a multi-turn form of sycophancy. We send frozen multi-turn scenes to 60 models from 13 vendors and label each transcript with a trajectory (the model held its position or folded) and a manner (how it held or folded). Three scenes were used to build the codebook; six more were written afterwards and preregistered as a replication. Whether a model holds tracks its generation: fold rate correlates with a public capability index at Spearman -0.64 to -0.69 across the two scene sets, so newer models fold less, unlike earlier reports that sycophancy grows with model scale. How a model holds tracks the vendor: six of the 17 manner codes sort by vendor at permutation p <= 0.001, corrected across the codebook, and four do so again on the replication scenes. Anthropic's models name the feeling, warn and offer an alternative; OpenAI's do less of all three and almost never cite their own rules; Google's cite themselves and their AI nature when asked to do something; Meta's write the artifact they shouldn't. Six LLM coders from three vendors labeled every transcript, and three human coders labeled fifty held-out transcripts. The machines were the more consistent readers (Krippendorff's alpha 0.66 against 0.46), agreed with the author on trajectory at kappa 0.84 to 0.91, and matched the adjudicated reference at 0.83. For behavior a non-specialist can judge, the human contribution is authoring and bounding the codes and owning a small reference, not producing labels at volume.

cs.CL · cs.HC