公开论文雷达

公开 arXiv 研究简报 · 2026-09-02T01:07:06.610171+00:00

先看结论和关键数字,再决定要不要读原文。候选只在首次出现时展示;旧候选若后来通过深读门槛,仍会进入重点。

先看代理指标怎么骗人,再看怎么换成可执行判据

八张卡里有一条共同线:编译通过、星标高、读起来通顺,都不等于对。ShadowBench给出最硬的数字,同一配置编译率61.8%但语义对齐只有11.2%,先读它建立警觉;再看模型检测、引擎执行怎么做裁判,最后看求解器失败如何定位修复、以及工具本身还有没有人维护。

推荐阅读顺序

  1. 2608.29270:先立标尺:同一配置编译率61.8%对语义对齐11.2%,看清代理指标能高估到什么程度。
  2. 2608.30581:同一招换到强化学习解释上:模型检测算出精确答案当裁判,还看出小模型答得比乱猜还差。
  3. 2608.28481:第三个例子最省事:翻译结果直接丢进AlphaGeometry引擎跑,跑通才算对,不看文本相似度。
  4. 2608.30803:从判对错转到修错:求解器只报超时没用,用程序点快照把失败缩到具体子目标再补引理。
  5. 2608.29016:看验证怎么塞进生成流水线:规划期和编码期各设关卡,换来零人工介入。
  6. 2608.28364:换到结果随机的场景:不求最优配置,只在有限模拟预算里定位平衡塌掉的边界。
  7. 2608.26209:判据变成配对规则:只改受保护属性后结果必须一致,不一致就拦,模型不用重训。
  8. 2608.28396:收尾提醒:这类工具自己也会没人维护,28个仓库只有5个活跃,星标不算数。
共性方法
八项工作都在换判据:把靠不住的代理信号(编译通过、文本相似、语句通顺、星标数、单次胜率)换成能机械算出来的判定——蕴含检验、引擎执行、模型检测精确值、提交时间线、反事实配对规则,判定过程可复算、可批量重跑。
关键分歧
分歧在裁判从哪来。ShadowBench、NL2AGBench、模型检测那三篇有现成的外部权威:Lean、AlphaGeometry引擎、PCTL计算结果,对错没得商量;边界发现和公平不变式得自己定阈值和参照,卡里只给了定性结论或缺数据集细节;仓库挖掘干脆不判算法对错,只判还有没有人维护。
选择准则
手上有能跑的引擎或可形式化模型,就拿它的执行结果当门控,别用编译率、相似度这类代理分;没有现成裁判时,先把阈值和参照写死并跨随机种子重跑;引入依赖前,先查最近有没有提交。

重点深读(8 / 8 篇)

形式化与程序验证(5 篇)

形式化与程序验证 8/30

SHADOWBENCH: Toward Reliable Automatic Evaluation of Semantic Alignment in Autoformalization

自动形式化语义对齐:影子定理双向蕴含检验替代编译率:自动形式化评测依赖编译率,会接受语义错位或拒绝等价表述的陈述。SA-Pass以影子定理集合对生成陈述执行正向与反向蕴含双重检验;ShadowBench含178道研究生至研究级问题,SA-Pass与专家二元一致率达98.8%。

两句看懂

编译率无法区分语义错位与语义正确的形式化陈述;SA-Pass以影子定理正反向蕴含检验替代专家评审。最优配置编译率61.8%但SA-Pass仅11.2%,跨6种配置与专家二元一致率98.8%。

核心判断

影子定理双向蕴含检验可自动判断形式化陈述的语义对齐,与专家判断二元一致率98.8%;编译率遗漏大量语义错位案例(编译率61.8%对应SA-Pass仅11.2%)。

关键要点

1. 评测缺陷:编译率接受类型正确但语义错位的陈述,也因表述形式不同拒绝语义等价的陈述;人工专家评审可靠但无法扩展至大规模重复评测。 2. 影子定理协议:为每道题构造完备影子集合(T⇒Si且∧Si⇒T,机械验证集合完备性),评测三步全通(编译+正向蕴含+反向蕴含)才记SA-Pass;集合由专家修订LLM草稿后一次构造,后续无限复用;ShadowBench覆盖178道题、8个数学领域、3个难度层,参考形式化平均行数约为短题基准的1.6倍。 3. 关键结果:最优配置编译率61.8%、SA-Pass仅11.2%,编译率高估成功率约5.5倍;SA-Pass跨6种配置与专家一致率98.8%,编译率与BEq+均更低;当前仅覆盖Lean 4且规模限于178道题。

证据与结果

ShadowBench:178道问题,研究生至研究级,8个数学领域,3个难度层,Lean 4全自动形式化(输入非形式陈述+证明,输出形式陈述+证明);参考形式化平均行数约为对比基准短题的1.6倍。测试六种智能体配置;最优配置编译率61.8%、SA-Pass 11.2%。SA-Pass跨6种配置与专家二元一致率98.8%,优于编译率和BEq+。早期版本(126题)用于大规模挑战赛评测。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
如何自动判断形式化证明助手中生成的形式化陈述与原始非形式陈述是否语义对齐,且不被表述形式差异误导?
研究路径
专家为每道题构造影子集合:每条影子Si满足T⇒Si,全体合取满足∧Si⇒T,Lean 4机械验证集合完备性。评测流程:①生成陈述通过Lean 4编译;②正向检查——生成陈述蕴含每条Si;③反向检查——∧Si蕴含生成陈述。三步全通记SA-Pass满分。专家修订LLM草稿构造集合,后续复用无需重新人工干预。
这对工程意味着什么
在自动形式化评测中,以SA-Pass替代编译率作为语义正确性门控:同一配置编译率61.8%对应SA-Pass仅11.2%,直接用编译率会系统性高估成功率约5.5倍;避免以固定参考形式对比,因等价陈述可有多种不同表述。
证据定位
跨6种智能体配置,SA-Pass与专家二元一致率98.8%,优于编译率与BEq+指标。最优配置编译率61.8%,SA-Pass仅11.2%,差距揭示编译率高估语义对齐成功率约5.5倍。(筛选维度:形式化验证、可复核评测)
适用边界
基准限于Lean 4,共178道问题;影子集合须专家手工构造(借助LLM草稿),构造成本限制了规模扩展;问题集中于研究生至研究级数学,对其他难度层级的泛化性未评估。
方法与英文摘要

为每道题构造影子定理集合(每条影子被目标定理蕴含,全体合取蕴含目标,Lean 4机械验证集合完备性),评测执行三步:编译检查→正向蕴含(生成陈述→每条影子)→反向蕴含(影子合取→生成陈述),全通记SA-Pass满分;集合一次构造可复用于任意数量生成结果。ShadowBench:178道题,研究生至研究级,8个数学领域,3个难度层,Lean 4全自动形式化任务。

Autoformalization translates informal mathematical theorems into code for proof assistants such as Lean. A central challenge is that current evaluation metrics can accept type-correct but misaligned statements or reject correct statements written in a different formulation. Inspired by Pass@$k$, we propose SA-Pass (*Semantic Alignment Pass*), which tests formal statements using auxiliary statements called *shadows* that characterize the intended statement. A generated statement receives full credit only when it compiles, implies each shadow (forward check), and is implied by their conjunction (backward check). We instantiate SA-Pass in ShadowBench, a Lean 4 full autoformalization benchmark of 178 postgraduate- to research-level problems spanning eight mathematical areas. Claude Code (Opus 4.8) with Numina-Lean-Agent reaches $61.8\%$ compile rate and $11.2\%$ SA-Pass. Across outputs generated by six agentic configurations, SA-Pass achieves $98.8\%$ binary agreement with expert judgments. An early version of ShadowBench served as the benchmark for Track 4 of the ICML 2026 AI4Math Challenge.

形式化与程序验证 7/30

Schwarz: Solver-Aware Agentic Program Verification

SMT证明失败难定位,Schwarz局部修复:智能体验证系统生成的规格常被SMT求解器拒绝,但报错只显示超时或未知,模型无法判断问题出在规格、缺失引理还是证明上下文。Schwarz用程序点快照、局部引理和理论感知策略把失败定位到具体子目标,在475个基准上解决95.2%,SV-COMP 1000任务解决91.5%,CPAchecker为60.1%。

两句看懂

智能体生成的验证规格看似合理,但SMT求解失败只报超时或未知,无法判断是规格错、缺引理还是证明上下文问题,Schwarz用程序点快照、局部引理和理论感知策略定位到具体子目标。在475个智能体验证基准上解决95.2%,在SV-COMP 2026 ReachSafety赛道1000任务上解决91.5%,CPAchecker同赛道仅60.1%。

核心判断

能否让智能体定位并修复SMT证明失败?可以:通过程序点快照、局部引理和理论感知策略实现局部化修复,475个基准解决95.2%,SV-COMP千任务解决91.5%(CPAchecker 60.1%)。

关键要点

1. 旧评测假设验证器报错(超时/未知/断言失败)足以指导修复,但该信号无法区分规格错误、缺失中间引理、无关证明上下文或理论表述不当,导致智能体反复整体重写规格而非定位具体子目标。 2. Schwarz把失败转成局部修复任务:程序点快照暴露该处可见的符号事实,局部引理让智能体提出并证明缺失的中间事实,理论感知求解器策略针对数值、量化、内存、浮点等目标给出更易被求解器接受的表述;实现覆盖C和Rust/Verus,评测集含475个近期智能体验证基准任务和SV-COMP 2026 ReachSafety赛道1000个任务(平均1427行代码)。 3. 结果显示求解器感知修复有效且可扩展:475个基准上解决95.2%任务,1000个SV-COMP任务解决91.5%,而CPAchecker仅解决60.1%;消融实验和与纯智能体基线的对比表明,局部化诊断(快照+引理+理论策略)是解决率提升的关键因素。

证据与结果

评测覆盖1475个任务,分两部分:(1) 475个基准,取自近期多个智能体验证工具的评测集;(2) SV-COMP 2026 ReachSafety赛道1000个C任务,平均1427行代码。Schwarz在(1)上解决95.2%,在(2)上解决91.5%,对照CPAchecker在同一1000任务上仅解决60.1%。另有消融实验和与'纯智能体'(无求解器感知修复)基线的对比,验证局部化诊断机制对解决率的贡献。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
智能体生成的验证规格看似合理,但SMT求解器无法证明时,如何定位并修复具体失败原因?
研究路径
验证失败后,先用程序点快照抽取该失败位置可见的符号事实;若证明步骤过大,智能体提出局部引理作为待证明的中间事实;若求解器上下文不适配(数值/量化/内存/浮点),按理论感知策略切换更易被求解器接受的表述(如C类型提升与64位算术间插入局部桥接引理);重新提交局部化子目标给求解器验证。
这对工程意味着什么
遇到SMT证明超时/未知时,先做程序点快照定位具体子目标再局部修复,而不是直接重写整份规格——整体重写会掩盖真正卡住求解器的局部理论表述问题,效率更低。
证据定位
475个智能体验证基准上解决95.2%任务;SV-COMP 2026 ReachSafety赛道1000个任务(均1427行代码)解决91.5%,同赛道CPAchecker仅解决60.1%,消融显示求解器感知修复优于纯智能体基线。(筛选维度:形式化验证、可复核评测)
适用边界
评测仅覆盖C与Rust/Verus两种语言实现,SV-COMP部分仅取ReachSafety赛道1000个任务,475个基准来自现有智能体验证工具的评测集,未说明是否覆盖其他属性类别或语言。
方法与英文摘要

实现覆盖C与Rust/Verus;评测集含两部分:475个来自近期智能体验证工具的基准任务,以及SV-COMP 2026 ReachSafety赛道1000个任务(平均1427行代码)。失败证明被转为局部修复任务:程序点快照暴露该处可见事实,局部引理让智能体提出待证明的中间事实,理论感知求解器策略针对数值、量化、内存、浮点等目标选择更易被求解器接受的表述。

Agentic verification systems can often generate source-level specifications that look plausible, but plausibility is not enough: the verifier must still turn those specifications into SMT obligations that the solver can prove. When this step fails, current LLM-driven loops usually expose only a coarse verifier error, timeout, or unknown solver result. The model cannot tell whether the specification is wrong, a helper lemma is missing, the proof context contains irrelevant facts, or the obligation needs a different theory view. This paper presents Schwarz, an agentic verification harness that makes SMT-backed proof failure local, checkable, and repairable. Schwarz turns failed verification into obligation-local repair tasks: program-point snapshots expose checked facts at a boundary, local lemmas let the agent propose missing proof steps, and theory-aware solver policies guide the agent toward solver-friendly formulations for numeric, quantified, memory, and floating-point obligations. We implement Schwarz for C and Rust/Verus and evaluate it on 1,475 tasks. On 475 benchmarks from recent agentic verification tools, Schwarz solves 95.2% of the tasks. On 1,000 tasks from the SV-COMP 2026 ReachSafety track, averaging 1,427 LOC, Schwarz solves 91.5% of the tasks, compared with 60.1% for CPAchecker. Ablations and comparison with a pure-agent baseline show that solver-aware repair is effective and scalable.

形式化与程序验证 7/30

Towards Fully Automated Medical Imaging Code Generation via Validation-based Context Engineering

验证式上下文工程让医学影像代码生成做到零人工介入:医学影像从业者常缺深度学习背景,通用大模型生成的处理代码又要反复人工调试。AutoMedImg用两阶段验证解决了这个痛点:规划阶段做语义与形式化验证,编码阶段做静态检查、执行测试与组装验证。在六个公开数据集、五种大模型上,它实现零人工介入,分割Dice最高0.90,分类准确率最高99%。

两句看懂

通用大模型生成医学影像处理代码常需人工反复干预,AutoMedImg通过规划阶段形式化验证与编码阶段静态检查、执行测试、组装验证消除了人工介入。六数据集、五模型测试显示,分割Dice最高0.90,分类准确率最高99%,全程零人工干预。

核心判断

医学影像代码可以自动生成且免人工干预:AutoMedImg用规划期形式化验证加编码期多重检查,在六数据集五模型上做到零人工介入,分割Dice达0.90、分类准确率达99%。

关键要点

1. 通用大模型在HumanEval、MBPP等函数级基准上准确率超90%,但缺乏医学影像领域知识与验证机制,生成完整处理流水线时仍需大量人工干预纠错。 2. AutoMedImg分两阶段并做受控验证:规划阶段做数据集分析与架构设计,附语义和形式化验证;编码阶段并行生成模块,依次做静态检查、执行测试、组装验证,并用验证反馈自动构建上下文。 3. 六数据集、五模型上实现零人工介入,分割Dice最高0.90、分类准确率最高99%;做法是把分阶段验证加入生成流水线,而不是只靠单轮生成。

证据与结果

评测覆盖六个成熟公开医学影像数据集,涉及CT、MRI等多模态、2D/3D体数据及NIfTI/DICOM格式,分别用五种不同大模型作为后端生成代码。对比对象是缺乏验证机制的通用LLM代码生成方案。核心指标为人工介入次数、分割Dice分数、分类准确率。结果:AutoMedImg在所有测试中实现零人工介入,分割Dice最高0.90,分类准确率最高99%。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
医学影像处理代码能否在无人工介入下自动生成,并靠多阶段验证保证正确性与可复用性?
研究路径
规划阶段:先做数据集分析,再设计处理架构,并对架构做语义验证与形式化验证。编码阶段:并行生成各功能模块,对每个模块做静态检查和执行测试,再做整体组装验证。全程用领域知识库、共享内存与验证反馈自动生成上下文;遇到新任务时,系统按项目相似度检索并复用已验证的流水线组件。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步行动:给复杂领域的代码生成流水线加入分阶段验证——架构形式化验证、模块静态检查、执行测试、组装验证。要避开的捷径:只靠通用LLM单轮生成而不做逐模块验证,即使模型能力强,也难保证流水线正确。
证据定位
在六个数据集、五种大模型的测试中,AutoMedImg实现零人工介入;分割任务Dice最高0.90,分类任务准确率最高99%,优于需要人工干预的通用LLM生成方案。(筛选维度:形式化验证、可复核评测)
适用边界
评测限于六个医学影像数据集与五种大模型,且只覆盖分割与分类两类任务;结果能否推广到其他医学影像任务或其他领域的代码生成,材料中未说明。
方法与英文摘要

AutoMedImg分两阶段。规划阶段先做数据集分析,再设计处理架构,并对架构做语义验证和形式化验证。编码阶段并行生成各功能模块,依次做静态检查、执行测试和组装验证。系统结合领域知识库、共享内存和验证反馈自动构建上下文,并按项目相似度检索、跨项目复用已验证的流水线组件。评测覆盖六个公开医学影像数据集(CT、MRI等模态,含2D/3D体数据,NIfTI/DICOM格式),后端使用五种大模型。

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated considerable promise in program generation for small-scale and conventional application development; however, they remain limited when applied to complex, domain-specific tasks such as medical image processing. General-purpose models lack explicit domain knowledge and robust validation mechanisms to ensure correctness, often requiring substantial human intervention to produce reliable processing pipelines. To address these limitations, we propose AutoMedImg, a multi-agent framework for fully automated medical image processing code generation. AutoMedImg orchestrates specialised agents across two phases: a Planning Phase that performs dataset analysis and architecture design with semantic and formal verification, and a Coding Phase that generates modules in parallel with static checking, execution testing, and assembly validation. This multi-stage validation mitigates error propagation throughout generation, while comprehensive auto-context engineering combining domain-specific knowledge bases, shared memory, and validation feedback automates context construction without manual prompting. A cross-project adaptive pipeline synthesis mechanism further accumulates validated pipelines and retrieves proven components for new tasks based on project similarity, enhancing generation efficiency through cross-project learning. Extensive evaluation across six diverse and well-established medical imaging datasets with five backbone LLMs demonstrates that AutoMedImg achieves zero human intervention, with Dice scores of up to 0.90 for segmentation tasks and 99% accuracy for classification.

形式化与程序验证 7/30

NL2AGBench: Benchmarking LLM Auto-Formalization for AlphaGeometry

闭源模型翻译几何题到AlphaGeometry DSL可执行率超80%,开源模型明显…:如果你在用AlphaGeometry做几何证明,人工把英文题翻成DSL是主要瓶颈,大模型翻译能不能用直接决定管道是否可用。NL2AGBench不看文本相似度,直接把10个模型的翻译输出送进AlphaGeometry引擎执行来判定对错,结果闭源模型可执行率超80%,开源模型明显落后。

两句看懂

AlphaGeometry要求几何题以专用DSL输入,人工翻译是主要使用瓶颈,NL2AGBench改用执行结果而非文本相似度评测10个大模型的翻译能力。测试显示闭源模型可执行率超80%,开源模型明显落后,而少样本提示、微调与人工提示可将Qwen3:235b等模型的可执行率提升最多33.3%。

核心判断

大模型能否可靠完成几何题到AlphaGeometry DSL的翻译,闭源与开源差距明显:闭源模型执行验证下可执行翻译率超80%,而最大开源模型仍难以保持几何约束,现有开源模型翻译能力明显不足。

关键要点

1.以往研究多评证明生成或用文本相似度给翻译打分,没有基准专门检验英文几何题译成AlphaGeometry可执行DSL的能力,论文称此前无此类基准。 2.NL2AGBench把10个开源与闭源模型的DSL输出直接送入AlphaGeometry引擎执行,以能否跑通判定对错,而非比对文本,并记录语法正确率。 3.闭源模型可执行率超80%,最大开源模型明显落后且难保持几何约束;少样本提示、微调、人工提示后Llama3.1:70b提升23%、Qwen3:235b提升33.3%,选翻译模型和做改进都应照此执行验证来办。

证据与结果

评测覆盖10个开源与闭源大模型、多种参数规模,输入英文几何题,输出经AlphaGeometry引擎直接执行,判定可执行翻译率与语法正确率,不看文本相似度。结果:闭源模型可执行率超80%,开源模型明显更低且难保持几何约束;错误分语法与逻辑两类;改进后Llama3.1:70b提升23%,GPT-4o-mini提升8%,Qwen3:235b提升33.3%。论文节选未给出题目总数或训练/测试划分细节。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
大模型能否把英文几何题准确翻译成AlphaGeometry要求的专用DSL,并让证明引擎真正跑通?
研究路径
第一步,收集英文几何题并人工构建对应的AlphaGeometry DSL标准答案。第二步,让10个开源与闭源模型分别把同一题目翻译成DSL。第三步,把模型输出直接送入AlphaGeometry引擎执行,以能否成功运行而非文本匹配判定正确。第四步,记录并分类语法错误与逻辑错误。第五步,对失败案例施加少样本提示、微调、人工提示后重新执行,对比提升幅度。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步行动:评自然语言到形式语言的翻译模型时,直接用下游引擎能否成功执行做判定标准,再据此选模型。要避开的捷径:不要只看文本相似度分数就判断翻译质量,那会高估开源模型的实际可用性。
证据定位
领先闭源模型可执行翻译率超80%,同等规模最大的开源模型明显更低且难以保持几何约束。错误被分为语法错误与逻辑错误两类。施加少样本提示、微调、人工提示后,Llama3.1:70b提升23%,GPT-4o-mini提升8%,Qwen3:235b提升33.3%。(筛选维度:形式化验证、可复核评测)
适用边界
论文节选未给出题目总数、难度分层或训练/测试划分细节,题目来源与代表性范围也未在节选中说明。
方法与英文摘要

基准由英文几何题与人工验证的AlphaGeometry DSL标准答案配对构成。让10个开源与闭源大模型(含GPT-4o-mini、Llama3.1:70b、Qwen3:235b等,覆盖多种参数规模)读题输出DSL代码,再把输出直接放入AlphaGeometry引擎执行验证,而不是比对文本相似度,同时统计可执行率、语法正确率并分类错误。

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in natural language understanding and mathematical reasoning. However, their ability to translate informal mathematical problems into formal representations remains underexplored. This limitation is particularly important for neuro-symbolic geometry systems such as AlphaGeometry, whose theorem-proving engine requires inputs in a specialized domain-specific language (DSL). Although AlphaGeometry achieves near-IMO gold-medalist performance, manually converting natural-language problems into its formal syntax remains a significant usability bottleneck. To address this challenge, we introduce the Natural Language to AlphaGeometry Benchmark (NL2AGBench), which evaluates LLMs in translating English geometry problems into AlphaGeometry-compatible formal representations. NL2AGBench uses execution-based verification within AlphaGeometry to assess translation quality rather than relying solely on textual similarity. We evaluate ten state-of-the-art open- and closed-source LLMs across multiple parameter scales and analyze executable translation accuracy, syntactic correctness, and error characteristics. Our experiments reveal a substantial performance gap between closed- and open-source models: leading closed-source models achieve executable translation rates above 80%, while even the largest open-source models struggle to consistently preserve geometric constraints and produce valid formalizations. We introduce an error taxonomy distinguishing syntax and logic errors and investigate mitigation strategies, including few-shot prompting, fine-tuning, and human-guided hinting, which yield measurable improvements across multiple model families.

形式化与程序验证 6/30

Automated Testing of LLM-Based Post Hoc Explainers Using Model Checking as an Oracle

LLM策略解释不能只看通顺:模型检测能判它对错:工程师如果把LLM接在强化学习策略后面做解释,最大风险是回答读起来合理、却违背环境事实;这个工作给出的办法是:在有形式化MDP模型的地方,用概率模型检测算出PCTL精确答案当裁判,先自动测出解释器通过率,再谈能不能部署。

两句看懂

LLM写的策略解释可能语句通顺但不忠实于环境,过去缺少系统测试;这里用概率模型检测给出精确参考答案当预言机。7个MDP环境、三个开源LLM的评测结果是:推理模型85%,中等模型70%,10亿参数模型低于随机基线。

核心判断

解释可信度随模型能力分层:以模型检测精确参考为裁判,推理模型通过率85%,中等规模模型70%,10亿参数模型低于随机基线,因此小模型生成的策略解释不应被当作环境事实。

关键要点

1. 旧问题:过去靠人工判断或LLM互评,缺少可计算的精确正确性标准。 2. 方法:用PCTL模型检测结果作预言机,生成查询并按难度分数优先选难例。 3. 结果与动作:85%、70%、10亿低于随机;部署前先在有形式化模型的子集测通过率。

证据与结果

评测范围是7个MDP环境和三个开源LLM:推理模型、中等规模模型、10亿参数模型。每个环境都按查询分类法生成用例,并比较难度优先选取与随机选取。结果是推理模型85%、中等模型70%、10亿参数模型低于随机基线;难度优先用例显著更难,直接暴露小模型理解环境事实的失败模式。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
LLM为强化学习策略生成的事后解释,究竟忠实于环境,还是只是看似合理的编造?
研究路径
流程是固定的六步:先为环境建形式化MDP模型;再用概率模型检测器按PCTL算最优动作、可达概率等精确参考值;然后按事后查询分类法生成问题;接着用非最优动作比例等问题特定难度分数给状态排序;优先抽高难度状态问LLM;最后把回答与模型检测结果自动比对,判通过或失败。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步:部署策略解释器前,先在可建形式化模型的子集上用模型检测算参考答案,测出通过率并记录失败查询类型。要避开的捷径:不要凭解释读起来通顺、术语像样,就把它当成正确证据。
证据定位
7个MDP环境上的自动比对显示:推理模型通过率85%,中等规模模型70%,10亿参数模型低于随机基线;按难度分数优先选出的用例,也显著难于随机抽取用例。(筛选维度:形式化验证、软件工程方法)
适用边界
方法边界清楚:只适用于能形式化建模的MDP环境;证据也只覆盖7个环境和三个开源LLM,未评测推理能力更强或更大规模模型。
方法与英文摘要

对7个MDP环境建形式化模型,用概率模型检测器计算PCTL精确参考结果作为测试预言机;再按事后查询分类法生成问题,例如动作是否最优、状态是否安全关键;同时用问题特定难度分数,如非最优动作占比,给状态排序,优先挑最难状态测试三个开源LLM。

Large language models (LLMs) are used as post hoc explainers of sequential decision-making policies, producing natural-language explanations of why an action was chosen. However, LLMs often generate plausible but incorrect statements, and no existing approach systematically tests whether such explanations are faithful to the underlying environment. Two classic software testing challenges stand in the way: there is no oracle for the correctness of an explanation, and the test inputs, natural language queries about a policy's behavior, lack the structure needed for systematic test case generation. We address both. Probabilistic model checking provides the test oracle, computing exact reference results against which LLM answers are graded automatically. A taxonomy of post hoc query categories structures the input space around the environment-level facts from which policy explanations are composed; test cases generated from it are prioritized by question-specific diagnostic difficulty scores. Across seven MDP environments, the testing separates three open-weight LLMs: a reasoning model passes 85% of test cases, a mid-size model 70%, and a 1B model falls below the random baseline, while prioritization surfaces significantly harder cases than random selection. Our results indicate how trustworthy LLM-generated explanations are in model-free settings, where the same LLMs are used but no oracle exists to verify them.

软件工程与仓库智能(3 篇)

软件工程与仓库智能 8/30

Sustainability of Open-Source Machine Learning Robustness Assessment Tools: A Repository Mining Study

开源鲁棒性工具:高星标≠仍维护:对28个开源机器学习鲁棒性评测工具(如ART、Foolbox)的GitHub仓库挖掘研究显示,按180天无提交规则,5个活跃、22个不活跃、1个已归档,历史星标数不能代表当前仍在维护。

两句看懂

许多团队误以为高星标、历史知名的开源鲁棒性工具仍可放心依赖,但研究按180天无提交规则重新分类了28个仓库。结果显示5个活跃、22个不活跃、1个归档,CleverHans虽超6400星仍被判定不活跃,说明可见度不等于可维护性。

核心判断

开源鲁棒性评测工具的可见度不能代表其仍被维护:28个仓库里仅5个活跃,22个不活跃,即使CleverHans星标超6400仍因180天无提交被判定不活跃。

关键要点

1. 旧假设/评测缺口:学界多把鲁棒性当作可被形式化验证的算法属性,较少把鲁棒性工具本身当作需要持续维护的软件系统看待,忽视工具与不断演进的ML框架、接口、数据集之间的兼容性问题。 2. 构造/协议:从既有研究的种子集出发,系统检索GitHub,确定28个鲁棒性工具仓库(含ART、Foolbox、Robustness Gym);采集提交历史、星标、关注者等指标;按「默认分支180天无提交」规则统一分类为活跃、不活跃、归档三类,采集日为2026年1月21日。 3. 决定性结果/诊断:28个仓库中5个活跃、22个不活跃、1个归档;对27个非归档仓库的Kaplan-Meier分析显示180天不活跃的中位时间为40.63个月(约3.39年);CleverHans案例(超6400星、185关注者)因近180天默认分支无提交仍被判定不活跃,表明历史可见度不能替代当前维护状态的核查。

证据与结果

数据源为GitHub,28个鲁棒性工具仓库(含Adversarial Robustness Toolbox、Foolbox、Robustness Gym),采集日2026年1月21日。按180天默认分支无提交规则分三类:5活跃、22不活跃、1归档。对27个非归档仓库Kaplan-Meier估计180天不活跃中位时间40.63个月(约3.39年)。诊断案例:CleverHans超6400星、185关注者,但近180天默认分支无提交,被判不活跃。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
开源鲁棒性评测工具的GitHub热度(星标、关注者)能否代表其当前仍被维护、可复现地支撑鲁棒性评估流水线?
研究路径
从既往研究种子集出发系统检索GitHub,筛得28个鲁棒性工具仓库;抓取提交时间线、星标、关注者等仓库artifact;设定默认分支180天无提交为不活跃阈值,划分活跃/不活跃/归档;对27个非归档仓库做Kaplan-Meier生存分析估计中位维护时长。
这对工程意味着什么
选用鲁棒性评测工具前先查最近180天内默认分支是否有提交;星标数、历史知名度是误导性捷径,不能替代对提交活跃度的直接核查。
证据定位
数据采集日2026年1月21日:28个仓库中5个活跃、22个不活跃、1个已归档;27个非归档仓库Kaplan-Meier中位生存期40.63个月(约3.39年);CleverHans超6400星仍被判定不活跃。(筛选维度:可复核评测、软件工程方法)
适用边界
样本仅28个从种子集扩展检索到的GitHub仓库,数据采集截止2026年1月21日,180天阈值和分类规则为研究设定,可能未覆盖所有鲁棒性工具或私有/非GitHub托管项目。
方法与英文摘要

从已有工作构造种子集,系统检索GitHub扩展为28个鲁棒性工具仓库(如ART、Foolbox、Robustness Gym);采集仓库提交、星标、关注者等软件工程指标;按180天默认分支无提交规则分类为活跃/不活跃/归档;对27个非归档仓库做Kaplan-Meier生存分析估计180天不活跃的中位时间。

Robustness evaluation is essential for deploying machine-learning (ML) systems in real-world settings, where models may face adversarial perturbations, distribution shifts, and other operational stressors. Many open-source tools, including Adversarial Robustness Toolbox, Foolbox, and Robustness Gym, support robustness testing and evaluation. However, little is known about how these tools are maintained, publicly engaged with, and sustained over time, even though practitioners may rely on them to select evaluation dependencies, reproduce robustness assessments, and provide evidence for AI assurance. We present an empirical study of the open-source robustness tooling ecosystem. Starting from a curated seed set derived from prior work, we systematically searched GitHub and identified 28 robustness-tool repositories. We analyzed repository artifacts to characterize observable community engagement, maintenance activity, and project longevity using established software-engineering metrics. Our results show that engagement and maintenance are unevenly distributed, with sustained activity concentrated in a small subset of repositories. At the data collection date of January 21, 2026, five repositories were classified as active, 22 as inactive, and one as archived. These findings highlight the need to treat robustness tools as evolving software systems.

软件工程与仓库智能 7/30

Where Does Balance Break? Boundary Discovery for Game Balance Testing under a Finite Simulation Budget

游戏平衡测试不必找最优配置,在有限模拟预算内定位平衡/失衡边界即可落地:如果你的团队频繁发平衡补丁,每次只跑几局模拟看胜率,结论很可能被随机性带偏。这篇工作给出BBExplorer方法:不靠单次模拟,而是在有限模拟次数内主动找出平衡与失衡的分界线,让补丁是否越界变成可检查的问题。

两句看懂

传统测试依赖可复现执行和稳定正确性标准,难以回答游戏参数微调后平衡边界移到了哪里,BBExplorer把这个问题转化为有限模拟预算下的边界发现任务。研究者在回合制游戏(2维参数)和即时战略游戏Generals(更高维参数)上测试,发现该方法在低维设置下表现最强,在更高维设置下仍然有效,且跨随机种子和跨阈值时边界位置保持稳定。

核心判断

在有限模拟预算下,游戏平衡与失衡的边界可以被高效定位:BBExplorer在低维参数空间效果最强,在更高维空间仍然有效,且跨随机种子和阈值设置保持稳定。

关键要点

1. 旧假设:测试可复现、正确性判据稳定、看覆盖率即可;但竞技游戏结果非确定、参数空间高维,单次模拟不可靠,也说不清平衡在哪里被打破。 2. 方法:BBExplorer先多方向生成候选参数点,再用预算感知两阶段筛选剔除低价值候选,最后自适应步长收缩逼近边界;并在未见随机种子和不同胜率阈值下重复实验作对照。 3. 结果:低维参数空间边界定位最强,更高维空间仍有效,跨种子和跨阈值边界位置无明显漂移——工程上可以把边界作为补丁放行的判断依据。

证据与结果

评测对象是两款游戏:自建回合制对战游戏(2维参数空间,如攻击力、速度)和即时战略游戏Generals(更高维参数空间)。评测方式是在两款游戏上运行完整边界发现流程,并额外在未见过的随机种子、不同胜率阈值设置下重复实验检验稳定性。摘录只给出定性结论:低维效果最强,高维仍有效,跨种子/阈值边界位置稳定;未提供具体命中率或误差数值。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
在模拟次数有限的前提下,如何快速定位游戏参数空间中平衡与失衡区域的分界线,而不是靠少量对局结果猜?
研究路径
BBExplorer的三步机制:1)多方向候选生成——在参数空间的多个方向上撒点,避免只沿单一方向搜索漏掉边界;2)预算感知两阶段筛选——先粗筛剔除明显非边界的候选,再精筛保留高价值候选,用筛选替代穷举来控制模拟次数;3)自适应步长收缩——沿候选方向逐步缩小步长逼近平衡/失衡分界,直至预算耗尽或收敛。
这对工程意味着什么
第一个行动:补丁上线前,先用边界发现方法算出当前配置离失衡区还有多远,再决定是否放行。要避免的捷径:不要只跑几次模拟看单次胜率就下结论,非确定性结果很容易误导判断。
证据定位
在自建回合制游戏(低维)中,边界定位效果最强;在Generals(更高维)中方法仍保持有效。跨随机种子、跨胜率阈值重复实验时,边界位置保持稳定,未出现明显漂移。摘录未给出具体命中率或误差数值,以上为定性结论。(筛选维度:可复核评测、软件工程方法)
适用边界
目前只在两款游戏(自建回合制游戏和即时战略游戏Generals)上验证,能否推广到更多类型、更高维度的游戏尚不清楚;摘录未给出命中率、误差等数值结果,量化证据有限。
方法与英文摘要

BBExplorer分三步。第一步,多方向候选生成:在参数空间的多个方向上撒点探索。第二步,预算感知两阶段筛选:先粗筛剔除明显不在边界上的候选,再精筛保留高价值候选,把模拟次数花在刀刃上。第三步,自适应步长收缩:沿候选方向逐步缩小步长逼近边界,直到预算耗尽或收敛。实验在两款游戏上进行:自建回合制游戏(2维参数空间)和即时战略游戏Generals(更高维参数空间),并在未见过的随机种子和不同胜率阈值下重复验证稳定性。

Software testing often relies on assumptions such as reproducible executions and stable correctness criteria. However, many modern software systems exhibit non-deterministic executions and large behavior spaces, making exhaustive exploration impractical and single-run judgments unreliable. These characteristics make it difficult to identify where acceptable behavior ends and problematic behavior begins. Competitive multiplayer games represent a challenging instance of such systems, where balance must be maintained so that no single strategy dominates. Even small parameter changes can trigger abrupt balance disruption, yet detecting such failures requires repeated simulations under non-deterministic outcomes and high-dimensional parameter spaces. In this paper, we formulate game balance regression testing as a boundary-discovery problem under a finite simulation budget. The objective is to efficiently identify inputs near the boundary that separates balanced and unbalanced regions. To address this problem, we propose BBExplorer, which combines multi-directional candidate generation, budget-aware two-stage screening, and adaptive step-size shrinkage for boundary refinement. Experimental results on two games with different levels of complexity show that the approach is strong in low-dimensional settings and remains effective in higher-dimensional ones. It also exhibits stable boundary behavior across unseen random seeds and threshold settings. These results indicate that BBExplorer is effective for practical balance regression testing and, more broadly, for boundary-oriented testing in non-deterministic, budget-constrained systems.

软件工程与仓库智能 6/30

Fairness Invariants: A Relational Approach to Explaining and Mitigating Fairness Bugs

公平不变式能定位并拦截歧视性判决,黑盒模型不用重训练:如果你的信贷或司法系统被质疑歧视,现有解释工具只能说清单个判决,说不清为什么相似的人结果不同。REMI把公平性当成双向规则来学习:改动受保护属性后结果必须一致,不一致就是漏洞,并生成守卫规则拦截这类判决。定位准确率超83%,黑盒模型歧视性判决最多减少70%,且无需重训练。

两句看懂

现有可解释性方法只能解释单一决策,无法定位比较原始输入与反事实对时产生的歧视根源;REMI借鉴循环不变式合成,学习双向关系规则作为公平不变式来定位并拦截不公平预测。评测显示,定位真实公平漏洞成功率超83%,黑盒模型歧视性判决最多降低70%。

核心判断

将反事实公平建模为双向关系不变式,可以在不重训练的前提下定位并拦截个体公平漏洞。支撑数据:定位成功率超83%,黑盒歧视性判决最多降低70%。

关键要点

1. 现有公平解释工具只解释单个输入的判决(如为何贷款被拒),解释不了为何相似的x'获批,个体公平漏洞因此难以定位。 2. REMI对原始样本x与反事实x'的配对数据学习双向规则,强制两者结果一致,并用三种数据对齐技术推断可解释规则作守卫;在符号与神经网络程序上对照真实漏洞验证。 3. 定位成功率超83%,优于现有最优基线;黑盒歧视性判决最多减少70%;工程上可直接给已部署系统加守卫规则,不改模型。

证据与结果

评测对象是符号程序与神经网络程序。做法是把REMI的定位结果与已知真实公平漏洞比对,并与现有最优基线对比。结果:漏洞定位命中率超83%,优于基线;黑盒模型歧视性判决最多减少70%。原文摘录未提供数据集名称、样本量和分档信息。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
如何定位个体公平性漏洞的具体成因,并在不重训练模型的前提下修复黑盒系统的歧视性判决?
研究路径
机制是一条配对规则管线:先只改受保护属性生成反事实对,再在配对数据上学习双向一致性规则(区别于传统若头则尾的单向蕴含),违反规则的区域即漏洞区域,最后用这些可解释规则做运行时守卫,拦截或改判黑盒模型输出,原模型参数不动。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步行动:对你的高风险决策系统构造原始与反事实配对样本,学习双向规则守卫,先在不改模型的情况下拦截歧视性输出。要避开的捷径:别只用单输入可解释性方法诊断公平问题,它捕捉不到比较性歧视的根源。
证据定位
REMI在符号与神经网络程序上定位真实公平漏洞的成功率超过83%,优于现有最优基线;应用于黑盒模型时,歧视性判决最多减少70%。评测方式是将定位结果与已知真实漏洞比对。(筛选维度:形式化验证、可复核评测)
适用边界
原文摘录未给出具体评测数据集名称、样本规模、分档细节及基线方法清单;三种数据对齐技术的机制细节也未在摘录中展开。
方法与英文摘要

REMI借鉴循环不变式合成,把反事实公平视为关系不变式发现问题。做法分四步:1)为每个输入x构造反事实对x',只改受保护属性;2)对(x,x')配对样本用三种数据对齐技术处理;3)学习双向规则模型,强制x与x'输出一致,这一点不同于传统单向蕴含对;不一致的区域标记为公平不变式违反区域;4)把推断出的规则当作运行时守卫,拦截或改判落入违反区域的预测,不修改原模型参数。方法在符号程序与神经网络程序上做了评测。

Data-driven software systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes socio-economic domains, from criminal justice to financial lending. However, these systems often exhibit individual discrimination---unjustified disparities in which a program yields different outcomes for similar individuals who differ only in their protected attributes (e.g., race, gender, age). While existing research has focused on detecting and quantifying these bugs, there remains a critical lack of principled mechanisms to explain and localize individual fairness bugs. Current explanation techniques are largely designed for single-input decisions rather than the relational nature of discrimination, which inherently involves a comparison between an original and a counterfactual pair. We present REMI, a framework for the automated localization, explanation, and mitigation of individual discrimination. Inspired by loop-invariant synthesis in formal methods, we treat counterfactual fairness as a relational invariant discovery problem. We introduce a bidirectional relational explanation framework that learns over paired examples $(x, x')$ to identify regions of the input space where fairness is violated. Unlike traditional one-way implication pairs used in invariant inference, our approach enforces bidirectional constraints: requiring identical outcomes for both original and counterfactual samples. REMI utilizes three data-alignment techniques to infer interpretable rule-based models that act as "fairness invariants." These rules serve as guardrails to selectively block or relabel unfair predictions without requiring model retraining. Our evaluation on symbolic and neural network programs demonstrates that REMI localizes ground-truth fairness bugs in over 83% of cases, significantly outperforming state-of-the-art baselines and reducing discriminatory decisions in black-box models by up to 70%.

代码质量与优化(0 篇)

本轮没有通过深读证据门的重点论文。

UI 与 GUI Agent(0 篇)

本轮没有通过深读证据门的重点论文。

个人知识与本体(0 篇)

本轮没有通过深读证据门的重点论文。

人机协同与对齐(0 篇)

本轮没有通过深读证据门的重点论文。

本轮分类概览

同一论文只归入一个最先命中的赛道,避免重复计数;“新增候选”只统计首次展示的论文。

赛道新增候选重点
形式化与程序验证75
软件工程与仓库智能13
代码质量与优化00
UI 与 GUI Agent10
个人知识与本体30
人机协同与对齐00

近一个季度监测日历

北京时间。绿色表示有可阅读的新候选,灰蓝表示已监测但无新增,橙色表示部分降级;“无记录”不等于失败。

近 14 次监测窗口

仅展示公开源的聚合运行状态,不含提示词、全文或个人数据。

本轮新增候选(12 篇)

按赛道、评分和日期展开;中文标签用于导航,英文摘要用于核验。已展示过的旧候选不会每日重复。

形式化与程序验证(7 篇)

形式化与程序验证 · 7/30 · 2026-08-31求解器感知的智能体程序验证将SMT验证失败转为局部可修复任务,提供程序点快照、局部引理与理论感知策略,辅助智能体定位并修复证明。Schwarz: Solver-Aware Agentic Program Verification

Agentic verification systems can often generate source-level specifications that look plausible, but plausibility is not enough: the verifier must still turn those specifications into SMT obligations that the solver can prove. When this step fails, current LLM-driven loops usually expose only a coarse verifier error, timeout, or unknown solver result. The model cannot tell whether the specification is wrong, a helper lemma is missing, the proof context contains irrelevant facts, or the obligation needs a different theory view. This paper presents Schwarz, an agentic verification harness that makes SMT-backed proof failure local, checkable, and repairable. Schwarz turns failed verification into obligation-local repair tasks: program-point snapshots expose checked facts at a boundary, local lemmas let the agent propose missing proof steps, and theory-aware solver policies guide the agent toward solver-friendly formulations for numeric, quantified, memory, and floating-point obligations. We implement Schwarz for C and Rust/Verus and evaluate it on 1,475 tasks. On 475 benchmarks from recent agentic verification tools, Schwarz solves 95.2% of the tasks. On 1,000 tasks from the SV-COMP 2026 ReachSafety track, averaging 1,427 LOC, Schwarz solves 91.5% of the tasks, compared with 60.1% for CPAchecker. Ablations and comparison with a pure-agent baseline show that solver-aware repair is effective and scalable.

阅读 arXiv 原文
形式化与程序验证 · 6/30 · 2026-08-31以模型检验为预言测试LLM事后解释器用概率模型检验计算精确参考结果作为测试预言,以查询分类法结构化输入空间,自动评判LLM解释对环境的忠实性。Automated Testing of LLM-Based Post Hoc Explainers Using Model Checking as an Oracle

Large language models (LLMs) are used as post hoc explainers of sequential decision-making policies, producing natural-language explanations of why an action was chosen. However, LLMs often generate plausible but incorrect statements, and no existing approach systematically tests whether such explanations are faithful to the underlying environment. Two classic software testing challenges stand in the way: there is no oracle for the correctness of an explanation, and the test inputs, natural language queries about a policy's behavior, lack the structure needed for systematic test case generation. We address both. Probabilistic model checking provides the test oracle, computing exact reference results against which LLM answers are graded automatically. A taxonomy of post hoc query categories structures the input space around the environment-level facts from which policy explanations are composed; test cases generated from it are prioritized by question-specific diagnostic difficulty scores. Across seven MDP environments, the testing separates three open-weight LLMs: a reasoning model passes 85% of test cases, a mid-size model 70%, and a 1B model falls below the random baseline, while prioritization surfaces significantly harder cases than random selection. Our results indicate how trustworthy LLM-generated explanations are in model-free settings, where the same LLMs are used but no oracle exists to verify them.

阅读 arXiv 原文
形式化与程序验证 · 8/30 · 2026-08-29自动形式化语义对齐评测基准提出SA-Pass,以影子命题做前向与后向蕴含检验,并构建含178道Lean4题的自动形式化基准。SHADOWBENCH: Toward Reliable Automatic Evaluation of Semantic Alignment in Autoformalization

Autoformalization translates informal mathematical theorems into code for proof assistants such as Lean. A central challenge is that current evaluation metrics can accept type-correct but misaligned statements or reject correct statements written in a different formulation. Inspired by Pass@$k$, we propose SA-Pass (*Semantic Alignment Pass*), which tests formal statements using auxiliary statements called *shadows* that characterize the intended statement. A generated statement receives full credit only when it compiles, implies each shadow (forward check), and is implied by their conjunction (backward check). We instantiate SA-Pass in ShadowBench, a Lean 4 full autoformalization benchmark of 178 postgraduate- to research-level problems spanning eight mathematical areas. Claude Code (Opus 4.8) with Numina-Lean-Agent reaches $61.8\%$ compile rate and $11.2\%$ SA-Pass. Across outputs generated by six agentic configurations, SA-Pass achieves $98.8\%$ binary agreement with expert judgments. An early version of ShadowBench served as the benchmark for Track 4 of the ICML 2026 AI4Math Challenge.

阅读 arXiv 原文
形式化与程序验证 · 7/30 · 2026-08-29面向医学影像的自动代码生成框架多代理框架两阶段协作:规划阶段做语义与形式验证,编码阶段并行生成并执行静态检查、运行测试与组装验证。Towards Fully Automated Medical Imaging Code Generation via Validation-based Context Engineering

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated considerable promise in program generation for small-scale and conventional application development; however, they remain limited when applied to complex, domain-specific tasks such as medical image processing. General-purpose models lack explicit domain knowledge and robust validation mechanisms to ensure correctness, often requiring substantial human intervention to produce reliable processing pipelines. To address these limitations, we propose AutoMedImg, a multi-agent framework for fully automated medical image processing code generation. AutoMedImg orchestrates specialised agents across two phases: a Planning Phase that performs dataset analysis and architecture design with semantic and formal verification, and a Coding Phase that generates modules in parallel with static checking, execution testing, and assembly validation. This multi-stage validation mitigates error propagation throughout generation, while comprehensive auto-context engineering combining domain-specific knowledge bases, shared memory, and validation feedback automates context construction without manual prompting. A cross-project adaptive pipeline synthesis mechanism further accumulates validated pipelines and retrieves proven components for new tasks based on project similarity, enhancing generation efficiency through cross-project learning. Extensive evaluation across six diverse and well-established medical imaging datasets with five backbone LLMs demonstrates that AutoMedImg achieves zero human intervention, with Dice scores of up to 0.90 for segmentation tasks and 99% accuracy for classification.

阅读 arXiv 原文
形式化与程序验证 · 0/30 · 2026-08-28认证代码世界模型中的拓扑与规范认证模型只能确定可达查询集,不可达区域如同规范自由度;环形仪器显示错误拓扑伪影可无法证伪且无害。An Enclosed Mode Is a Gauge Choice: Topology Relative to Reach in Certified Code World Models

A code world model accepted by a sampling gate can be exactly right on everything the gate can see and arbitrarily wrong beyond it. We characterize what a certified model can know, and what its errors can cost, when the omission is an annular freeze mode enclosing an unreachable interior. The gate quotient makes the question precise: acceptance-with-certainty determines the model exactly on the reachable query set; beyond reach is gauge. On a minimal ring instrument we prove the extreme case (a wrong-topology filled-disc artifact unfalsifiable by any sampling gate and bitwise harmless at play) and measure, with LLM synthesis across three model families, how one knob (a channel of width gamma) walks the same artifact through three regimes: unfalsifiable-and-harmless, falsifiable-and-costly, and instantly falsified. Three principles organize the empirics. First, danger is topology relative to reach: a channel the planner can use collapses the blind model's exploitation (play cost 1.09 to ~0 over a knee at gamma ~ 0.1), while a hidden channel with the same first Betti number keeps it at full strength (1.12). Second, repair is parameter-bound and sensor-bound: no family recovers the region from outside evidence; from inside, models pose the right topology but cannot pin its parameters, and the posed topology tracks the guiding persistent-homology summary's wrong beta_1 (a sensor with a measured geometric resolution limit), not the truth. Third, mitigation must match the error's dimension and direction: point fences fail against the one-dimensional boundary, a dimension-matched persisted fence collapses exploitation to a two-lesson transient (0.999 to 0.058), and the dual freedom certificate collapses the invented-mode failure symmetrically (1.769 to 0.029). In n dimensions the shell makes misidentification near-certain while the danger stays fully exploitable: the two axes are independent.

阅读 arXiv 原文
形式化与程序验证 · 7/30 · 2026-08-28面向AlphaGeometry的形式化翻译基准评测LLM将英文几何题翻译为AlphaGeometry兼容的形式表示,采用基于执行验证的方式检验翻译正确性。NL2AGBench: Benchmarking LLM Auto-Formalization for AlphaGeometry

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong capabilities in natural language understanding and mathematical reasoning. However, their ability to translate informal mathematical problems into formal representations remains underexplored. This limitation is particularly important for neuro-symbolic geometry systems such as AlphaGeometry, whose theorem-proving engine requires inputs in a specialized domain-specific language (DSL). Although AlphaGeometry achieves near-IMO gold-medalist performance, manually converting natural-language problems into its formal syntax remains a significant usability bottleneck. To address this challenge, we introduce the Natural Language to AlphaGeometry Benchmark (NL2AGBench), which evaluates LLMs in translating English geometry problems into AlphaGeometry-compatible formal representations. NL2AGBench uses execution-based verification within AlphaGeometry to assess translation quality rather than relying solely on textual similarity. We evaluate ten state-of-the-art open- and closed-source LLMs across multiple parameter scales and analyze executable translation accuracy, syntactic correctness, and error characteristics. Our experiments reveal a substantial performance gap between closed- and open-source models: leading closed-source models achieve executable translation rates above 80%, while even the largest open-source models struggle to consistently preserve geometric constraints and produce valid formalizations. We introduce an error taxonomy distinguishing syntax and logic errors and investigate mitigation strategies, including few-shot prompting, fine-tuning, and human-guided hinting, which yield measurable improvements across multiple model families.

阅读 arXiv 原文
形式化与程序验证 · 4/30 · 2026-08-28开放协作的数学形式化平台用户发起形式化任务,AI代理贡献Lean证明,机器校验保证正确性,探索人类与AI代理的互联网规模数学协作。Prove2Me: An Open Collaborative Platform for Scaling Math Formalization

Proof assistants such as Lean 4 promise the paradigm of formally verified mathematics, but large-scale formalization projects have faced major barriers to entry, including the need for expertise in formal verification (as well as the underlying mathematics) and the significant time required for writing formal proofs. AI coding agents have dramatically reduced these barriers; human users can now use natural language to prompt agents to write complex proofs in Lean. This opens up the intriguing possibility of internet-scale mathematical collaboration involving both humans and AI agents, where correctness is machine-checked. To realize this possibility, we introduce Prove2Me (https://prove2.me), an open collaborative platform for formalizing mathematics. Users launch formalization "missions", to which AI agents contribute formal proofs toward completion. We designed mechanisms and a specialized harness in Prove2Me that enable large-scale collaboration so that agents can build on one another's work and freely reuse existing results. In doing so, Prove2Me aims to turn math formalization into a scalable, crowd-sourced effort open to anyone with an agent.

阅读 arXiv 原文

软件工程与仓库智能(1 篇)

软件工程与仓库智能 · 8/30 · 2026-08-29GitHub云端代理日志数据集大规模GitHub代理活动数据集,含30余万任务与数千万条会话日志,记录提示、中间推理与工具调用步骤。AgentLogs: A Dataset for Opening the Black Box of GitHub's Cloud Agent

Generative AI-based software engineering agents are becoming routine contributors to real-world software projects. On GitHub, developers can assign tasks to the Copilot cloud agent, which autonomously explores the repository, edits code, runs commands, and opens or reviews pull requests, producing a detailed log of every step along the way. While existing datasets capture outcomes of agent contributions, such as agent-authored pull requests, the process by which agents produce these contributions remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, we introduce AgentLogs, a large-scale dataset of agent activity on GitHub. AgentLogs comprises 307,416 agent tasks and 549,239 agent sessions in 35,810 of the 1,812,362 popular public repositories that we scanned, together with 64,255,174 session log entries that record each agent run step by step, including prompts, intermediate reasoning, tool calls (e.g., file edits, git operations, and GitHub interactions), and token usage. By exposing not only what agents contribute but also how they work, AgentLogs enables research on agent behavior, efficiency and cost, task formulation, failure modes, and human-agent collaboration in agentic software engineering.

阅读 arXiv 原文

代码质量与优化(0 篇)

本轮该赛道没有候选论文。

UI 与 GUI Agent(1 篇)

UI 与 GUI Agent · 0/30 · 2026-08-31会议副信道中的主动信息检索与可视化混合主动应用以多代理LLM流水线结合RAG,在会议侧信道以短暂提示呈现来源洞察与可交互图表。InsightToast: Proactive Information Retrieval & Glanceable Visualization in the Side Channel of Data-Rich Meetings

Missing institutional context during meetings can impede effective participation. Retrieving relevant information, often scattered across heterogeneous internal and external sources, requires costly task-switching that disrupts both individual focus and collective conversational flow, particularly detrimental during cognitively demanding tasks such as decision-making. We introduce InsightToast, a mixed-initiative application that monitors verbal discourse in real time, identifies topics and informational needs as they emerge, and proactively retrieves relevant information through a multi-agent large language model (LLM)-based pipeline integrating retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) to produce source-grounded insights as succinct text and glanceable interactive charts, delivered through a peripheral interface as ephemeral toasts in the conversation's side channel. To demonstrate the potential for yielding serendipitous insights, we showcase a usage scenario involving a knowledge base of legislative documents as the meeting's context. We then report on a comparative study (N=16), in which participants arrived at informed policy decisions while maintaining natural conversation flow.

阅读 arXiv 原文

个人知识与本体(3 篇)

个人知识与本体 · 4/30 · 2026-08-30知识图谱记忆优先的事实核查系统混合事实核查框架:先以知识图谱语义记忆评估声明,证据不足时回退可信网络源,并由对抗性多代理审议判断。Memory-First Fact-Checking: A Knowledge-Graph-Grounded Multi-Agent System for Misinformation Detection

This paper introduces a hybrid fact-checking framework that integrates Knowledge Graph-based semantic memory with adversarial multi-agent reasoning for explainable misinformation detection. The proposed system follows a memory-first, web-fallback architecture, in which input claims are initially evaluated against a dual-index Knowledge Graph through Sentence-BERT-based semantic retrieval and Natural Language Inference. When the evidence retrieved from the graph is insufficient to support a reliable decision, the framework collects information from trusted web sources and assesses it using an adversarial tribunal composed of support, contradiction, and judging agents. A graph-aware confidence mechanism combines semantic similarity, NLI confidence, and structural graph evidence to determine whether internal knowledge is sufficient, thereby reducing unnecessary web retrieval. Following verification, validated information is transformed into structured triples and incorporated into the Knowledge Graph, supporting the incremental expansion of the system's semantic memory. Experimental evaluation on a curated COVID-19 misinformation benchmark demonstrates that the proposed framework achieves an accuracy of 97.4\% and a macro-averaged F1-score of 92.6% on resolved claims, outperforming a Llama~3.3~70B baseline, which obtains an accuracy of 87.7% and a macro-averaged F1-score of 86.3%.

阅读 arXiv 原文
个人知识与本体 · 0/30 · 2026-08-29认知图场记忆的多模态具身导航以多模态场景图耦合关系记忆与连续空间直觉,目标不匹配时投影到语义前沿场,指导长期探索导航。CGFM-Nav: Cognitive Graph-Field Memory for Semantic-Guided Lifelong Multimodal Embodied Navigation

Vision-and-Language Navigation (VLN) requires agents to reason over accumulated observations while continuously exploring unseen regions. However, existing environment representations often struggle to jointly support explicit semantic memory and continuous exploration guidance. To address this challenge, we propose Cognitive Graph-Field Memory (CGFM), a persistent multimodal scene representation that couples explicit relational memory with continuous spatial intuition. CGFM organizes objects, spatial relations, and visual observations into a multimodal scene graph, enabling target retrieval and long-horizon reasoning across navigation tasks. When no reliable target match is identified, graph-based evidence is projected into a goal-conditioned semantic-frontier field to guide exploration toward semantically promising frontiers and regions. Building upon CGFM, we introduce CGFM-Nav, a foundation-model-based framework for lifelong multimodal navigation that integrates task-relevant subgraph selection, VLM reasoning, and verification feedback into a closed decision loop. Preliminary experiments on GOAT-Bench show that, under the same Qwen3-VL-8B backbone, CGFM-Nav improves the overall success rate from 53.2% to 63.0% and SPL from 30.0% to 39.6%, demonstrating the effectiveness of combining explicit semantic memory with semantic-guided exploration.

阅读 arXiv 原文
个人知识与本体 · 3/30 · 2026-08-29基于图记忆的选择性遗忘框架将对话轮次转为类型化节点与边,按近因性、访问频率、中心性与年龄剪枝;实验显示图记忆未优于扁平向量基线。Selective Forgetting: A Graph-Based Memory Framework for Long-Term LLM Agents

Knowledge graphs have been proposed as a structured alternative to flat retrieval-augmented generation for long-term agent memory, on the assumption that representing conversations as entities and relations improves recall. We evaluate that assumption directly. Our framework extracts each conversational turn into typed nodes and attributed edges, answers questions from a two-hop subgraph, and periodically prunes nodes that score low on a weighted combination of recency, access frequency, degree centrality, and age. On LongMemEval, the graph does not outperform a flat vector baseline at a matched candidate-generation budget of five retrieval roots: token F1 is $0.417$ against $0.468$, and a paired bootstrap over 500 questions gives $Δ= -0.050$ (95\% CI $[-0.085, -0.016]$). The gap is widest on questions that require recalling a specific prior assistant turn, where judged correctness falls from $0.911$ to $0.607$, suggesting that decomposing a turn into entities discards the surface form these questions depend on. The forgetting module is more successful. Applied once to a persistent 27{,}021-node graph, it removes 9.8\% of nodes and 9.5\% of stored bytes; token F1 is unchanged ($+0.001$, 95\% CI $[-0.015, +0.016]$) and judged correctness falls by $1.6$ points, with the 95\% interval bounding any loss at $3.8$ points ($[-0.038, +0.006]$). Because our extractor is a single small model evaluated on one benchmark, these results characterise this extraction-based pipeline rather than graph-structured memory in general. Code: https://github.com/skhanzad/Selective-Amnesia

阅读 arXiv 原文

人机协同与对齐(0 篇)

本轮该赛道没有候选论文。