公开论文雷达

公开 arXiv 研究简报 · 2026-08-27T01:00:22.986822+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。

三张卡都在把模糊需求先结构化再验证

三份卡共享同一思路:先把自然语言需求补全或形式化,再执行,再验证。候选人搜索卡给了硬数值和置信区间;GUI原型卡和VeGo只有定性说法,无具体指标。选读顺序按证据可核验度排,先看有数值的那张。

推荐阅读顺序

  1. 2608.23501:唯一给出可核验数值(691需求、召回0.241、1.9倍、置信区间不重叠),两级模式最能直接照搬,先读打底
  2. 2608.24749:同样是需求先结构化再由Agent做静态加动态两级验证,可对照上一张,但只说当前最优、无数值,读时留意
  3. 2608.22630:教学定位,把规约嵌进Go代码,思路可借,但只有课堂案例、无量化,并发还在路线图,最后读
共性方法
三者都不把用户的模糊话直接当查询或需求:先澄清补全或写成可机检的规约,再执行(生成原型/检索/编译),最后自动核验是否符合。核验和执行被拆成独立步骤,而非一步排序。
关键分歧
证据强度差别大。候选人搜索卡有基准规模、召回倍数和不重叠置信区间;GUI原型卡只声明当前最优与高效、无数值;VeGo仅有课堂案例、无量化对比,并发规约尚未实现。
选择准则
要靠数据选型就先信23501的两级(补全加核验)模式;把需求变原型或规约时可借鉴思路,但别把摘录里的当前最优、高效当成数值承诺,自己补测规模与失效边界。

重点深读(3 / 3 篇)

形式化与程序验证(1 篇)

形式化与程序验证 5/30

VeGo: Direct Deductive Formal Verification of Go Programs for Computer Science Education

VeGo:本科生不用学专用验证语言,也能对Go程序做机械形式验证:学形式验证常要同时学Hoare逻辑和Dafny这类专用语言,负担翻倍,很多学生因此放弃。VeGo把规约写进Go注释,文件照常编译运行,后端自动完成验证。教Go或写Go的人可以直接把形式规约带进日常代码。

两句看懂

传统本科形式验证课要学生同时学Hoare逻辑和Dafny等专用规约语言,认知负担双重。VeGo把规约以Go注释嵌入源文件,经SSA-HM[X]框架自动推导验证条件,课堂案例显示文件照常编译并通过机械验证。

核心判断

把Hoare规约以Go注释嵌入标准源文件,可以消除同时学习专用规约语言的认知双重负担。证据来自SSA-HM[X]框架对课堂案例的机械验证,以及Go具名多返回值与后置条件的结构对应。

关键要点

1. 旧假设:Dafny、TLA+、Coq要求学生另学一门与日常编程脱节的规约语言,纸笔证明无法机械检验,形式方法进不了本科核心课。 2. 方法与受控检查:选Go做宿主,`//@`注释不破坏合法Go;后端经SSA转换运行HM[X]推断和wp演算,具名多返回值(q,r)直接充当后置条件绑定符。 3. 决定性结果与行动:课堂案例和教材中规约可机械推导;实际用时优先给具名多返回值函数标Ensures,不要转向专用验证语言。

证据与结果

评估基于CS本科课堂案例和教学教材。论文没有给出测试题目数量、规约行数或量化对比指标。与Dafny、TLA+、Coq的比较限于语言选型的定性分析,维度是认知负担、语法噪声、与形式逻辑的对应度,没有系统性基准测试。并发规约支持仍在路线图阶段,未实现。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
能否让本科生不学专用验证语言,就对日常Go程序写出可机械检验的形式规约?
研究路径
源码解析`//@`注释后转为SSA。SSA与一阶函数式编程等价,HM[X]约束推断可直接作用于SSA节点。wp演算逆向传播规约,生成验证条件。clopen区间量词被脱糖,插入Reynolds' skip语句保持语义完整。wp与sp的精度对照HM[X]主类型机制,实现合同精度检查。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步:在Go项目里先给具名多返回值的函数标注Ensures合同,这是获得机械验证支持最直接的路径。要避开的捷径:不要改用Dafny等专用验证语言,那会切断代码与日常编译执行链的连接。
证据定位
作者在本科课堂案例和CS教材上评估VeGo,验证条件由HM[X]/SSA框架机械推导得出。与Dafny、TLA+的比较只是定性的语言选型分析,论文没有给出量化基准数据。(筛选维度:形式化验证)
适用边界
评估只覆盖课堂案例和教材,没有测试集规模和量化对比数据。并发规约(Owicki-Gries、Chandy-Misra、认识论时态逻辑)还在路线图阶段。论文未讨论规约标注覆盖率、工具误报率和生产代码库的适配性。
方法与英文摘要

规约用`//@`注释写进标准Go源文件,包括Requires、Ensures、Exsures、Preserves和带素变量的等式推理链。文件仍是100%合法Go,标准工具链照常编译执行。后端把源码转成SSA,利用SSA与一阶函数式编程的理论等价性,运行HM[X]约束推断和wp演算,生成并求解验证条件。clopen区间量词被脱糖,插入Reynolds' skip语句保证语义完整。合同精度检查借用wp/sp与HM[X]主类型机制的类比。

As formal methods are rapidly becoming accessible and practical due to AI coding agents, priority passes to assisting developers and students in generating specifications. Leveraging native HMX/SSA verifiers provide that support with rigorous mathematical guardrails. We present VeGo (Verified Go), a deductive formal verification system that enables direct verification of standard Go source code. VeGo incorporates Hoare-style contracts, loop invariants and integer variants, well-founded recursive measures, block-level scope invariants, and equational reasoning chains with primed variables directly as non-intrusive Go comments. We detail the language selection rationale justifying Go as an ideal balance over C, C++, Java, and Rust, strategically adopting Go's native multiple return values. We detail the tool architecture, exploiting the theoretical equivalence between Static Single Assignment (SSA) form and first-order functional programming to annotate code, desugar of clopen interval quantifiers, add Reynolds' skip statement, provide weakest precondition calculus, and native Hindley-Milner constraint inference, and verification condition resolution over the SSA form. We formalize contract-precision checking (weakest precondition vs. strongest postcondition) using an explicit analogy to type inference. Finally, we evaluate VeGo across educational textbooks and outline a roadmap for formal concurrency specifications using epistemic temporal logic.

软件工程与仓库智能(1 篇)

软件工程与仓库智能 6/30

An Interactive Agent for Requirement-Driven Candidate Sourcing

需求驱动候选人搜索智能体击穿基线盲区:将人才搜索重构为需求工程任务,通过有界澄清、工作流模板与双阶段提交协议将模糊请求转化为有据可查的候选人名单;在691条需求、21个系统的基准上,90%返回结果不被任何基线覆盖,召回率为次优系统1.9倍。

两句看懂

LLM网络智能体直接接收模糊请求后因跳过需求澄清而仅返回5人,与需求驱动方法找到的46人零重叠。论文在691条需求、21个系统上测试,需求驱动智能体召回率达0.241,是次优系统的1.9倍,90%返回结果无任何基线能独立覆盖。

核心判断

候选人搜索的瓶颈是需求表达而非检索:通过有界澄清与证据核验,需求驱动智能体召回联合池0.241的最相关真实人员,为次优系统1.9倍,90%结果零基线重叠。

关键要点

1. 现有系统假设请求已是合式查询并对其排序,跳过需求补全步骤,导致21–27%候选人的引证证据核查后不支持所声明角色,另有候选人词汇匹配但违反隐性绑定约束(如地区限制),两类失败分别来自核验缺失与澄清缺失。 2. 本文基准对691条需求执行完整需求生命周期评估:多模型构造有据接受预言机,成本感知核验模块对21个系统打分;受控变量为有界澄清访谈轮次上限、双阶段提交(检索与核验分离)以及双向终止守卫。 3. 在21系统横向对比中,需求驱动智能体返回结果的90%不被任何基线单独或合并覆盖;召回联合池0.241的最相关真实人员,为次优系统1.9倍,自举95%置信区间与所有基线不重叠;精排LLM作为互补核验器,覆盖与精排各司其职。

证据与结果

本文基准含691条需求,覆盖21个系统;构造时先用多模型生成有据接受预言机,再用成本感知核验模块打分。基线为20个LLM+网络方案。失败诊断:基线21–27%候选人引证证据核查后不支持所声明角色(验证缺失),另有结果词汇匹配但违反绑定约束(澄清缺失);强网络智能体基线仅返回5人且与需求驱动方案的46人零重叠。需求驱动智能体在覆盖率(100%)、产出量(2.5倍)和召回(0.241)三项均领先,置信区间与所有基线不重叠。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
将候选人搜索交给LLM智能体后仍频繁返回无关或无法核实的结果,根本瓶颈在检索层还是需求表达层?
研究路径
智能体按四步执行:①有界澄清访谈提取隐性约束(轮次有上限);②校验需求合式性与类型;③在混合人员库中检索;④对每位候选人逐一用有据证据核验。双阶段提交协议将检索与核验解耦,双向终止守卫防止过早或无限迭代,四轴收敛原则统一约束每步LLM行为。
这对工程意味着什么
将模糊搜索请求直接送入检索系统会跳过需求表达步骤,应先执行有界澄清与约束校验再搜索;避免以词汇相关性替代约束核验,否则21–27%的结果将缺乏有据支持且难以被识别。
证据定位
与20个LLM+网络基线对比:需求驱动智能体覆盖率100%且产出量达最高基线2.5倍;召回最相关真实人员0.241(联合池占比),为次优系统1.9倍,自举95%置信区间与所有基线不重叠,90%返回结果无任何基线单独覆盖。(筛选维度:可复核评测、软件工程方法)
适用边界
论文摘录中基准691条需求的领域分布与采样策略、混合人员库的规模与来源、预言机构造所用模型数量及版本均未详细说明,结果在其他搜索场景的可推广性需进一步验证。
方法与英文摘要

基准含691条需求,覆盖21个系统。智能体先通过有界澄清访谈提取隐性约束,再校验需求合式性与类型,之后对混合人员库检索,最终对每位候选人用有据证据逐一核验;四轴收敛原则约束每步LLM行为,工作流模板标准化执行路径,双向终止守卫防止过早或无限迭代。

Finding people from a natural-language description (``ML engineers transitioning to research roles in biotech'') is increasingly delegated to LLM agents and framed as information retrieval. We argue that it is fundamentally a requirements engineering task: such a request is an under-determined requirement with implicit constraints, many valid answers, and no acceptance criterion, so useful answers require eliciting, validating, and verifying the requirement before search can matter. We present \sys{}, to our knowledge the first interactive, requirements-driven candidate-sourcing agent (it elicits, validates, retrieves, and verifies a vague people-request into a justified slate through bounded elicitation, workflow templates, a two-stage commit protocol, and bidirectional termination guards) and \bench{}, a benchmark that runs the requirements lifecycle (criteria-anchored validation, multi-model evidence-grounded oracle construction, and cost-aware verification). Across $21$ systems and all $691$ requirements, \sys{} dominates breadth ($100%$ coverage at $2.5\times$ the yield) and is \emph{near-orthogonal} to the field, with $90%$ of the people it returns are surfaced by \emph{none} of $20$ strong LLM-plus-web baselines combined. Beyond breadth, an evidence-grounded judging of every system shows \sys{} \emph{recalls} the most relevant real people: $0.241$ of the union pool, $1.9\times$ the next system, with a bootstrap $95%$ interval disjoint from every baseline. \sys{} is thus the strongest \emph{sourcing} engine (the deepest real, reachable candidate pool), while precision-ranking LLMs serve as~complementary verifiers.

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(1 篇)

UI 与 GUI Agent 9/30

From Natural Language Requirements to Graphical User Interfaces: Automated Prototyping and Verification with Pretrained Language Models

LLM已能把需求文字变成GUI原型,并自动做静态和动态符合性检查:工程师关心它,是因为高保真原型费人工,规则式检查又覆盖不了语义复杂需求;该工作用LLM检索重排生成GUI,再用多模态Agent执行动态交互验证。

两句看懂

手工做高保真GUI原型成本高,规则式验证又难处理语义复杂的自然语言需求。该工作用LLM检索重排生成原型,并用多模态Agent做动态验证;摘录称两类任务达到当前最优,但未给数值。

核心判断

LLM可从自然语言需求检索、重排并生成可定制GUI原型;多模态Agent可自动验证动态应用需求。摘录称两者在人工标注基准上达到当前最优,但没有披露具体指标。

关键要点

1. 旧缺口:原型工具依赖专业手工,规则验证只能处理可形式化需求,语义复杂需求覆盖低、人工高。 2. 方法:C1做NL-GUI检索/生成双基准并适配专有GUI格式;C2由LLM查静态截图,多模态Agent生成并执行动态轨迹后评分。 3. 结果:摘录称C1检索当前最优、C2静态动态均高效;工程上先静态过滤再动态验证,但具体指标需查正文。

证据与结果

C1用众包人工标注的NL-GUI检索与生成数据集;C2用NL需求与GUI原型链接数据集,覆盖功能与非功能需求。评测含检索、生成、静态验证、动态验证四类任务,基线是现有检索与规则式验证方法;摘录未给数据规模、分层、数值和失效边界。

打开论文原文
它要解决什么
能否把自然语言需求直接映射到可定制GUI原型,并让多模态Agent同时检查静态截图与动态交互是否满足功能和非功能需求?
研究路径
C1路径是NL需求进入后检索候选GUI,再由LLM重排,直接生成或适配成专有格式原型。C2分两步:静态路径让LLM看原型截图做语义核查;动态路径让多模态LLM Agent生成交互步骤、执行操作、记录轨迹,并自动打分判断功能与非功能需求符合度。
这对工程意味着什么
第一步先在评审流里加静态截图语义核查,通过后再启动Agent动态验证。不要走捷径:别把规则匹配当成足够覆盖语义复杂NL需求。
证据定位
摘录只声明C1检索达到当前最优,C2静态与动态验证均报告高效性;比较对象是现有检索与规则验证方法。摘录未给具体数值,指标要查正文。(筛选维度:形式化验证、可复核评测、GUI Agent 方法)
适用边界
摘录未披露数据集规模、领域范围和语言范围;专有GUI格式适配能否跨平台迁移,Agent在长流程多步交互下的失效模式,摘录都没有说明。
方法与英文摘要

C1建NL-GUI检索与生成双基准,标注来自众包人工;LLM适配GUI生成,并支持专有GUI格式。C2建NL需求到GUI原型链接基准;静态由LLM核查截图语义,动态由多模态LLM Agent生成交互轨迹、执行并打分。

Requirements elicitation is essential for developing interactive software systems, as it helps ensure that the resulting product meets stakeholder needs. Since elicitation typically relies on natural language (NL), misunderstandings can arise from its inherent ambiguity. Formal specifications can reduce ambiguity but require technical expertise. GUI prototyping therefore provides a valuable alternative by turning requirements into tangible visual artifacts that support communication, elicitation, and validation. However, creating high-fidelity prototypes remains time-consuming and costly. Similarly, requirements verification, which ensures that implementations conform to specified requirements, is still largely manual, while existing automated approaches are often limited to static, rule-based techniques. This work addresses two challenges: (C1) reducing the effort required to transform NL requirements into GUI prototypes, and (C2) reducing the effort required for requirements verification in GUI applications and prototypes. For C1, we introduce novel NL-based GUI retrieval and reranking methods, new benchmarks, and techniques for efficiently adapting LLMs to GUI generation, including proprietary GUI representations. Their effectiveness is demonstrated on a large benchmark with human annotations. For C2, we propose LLM-based methods for verifying semantically complex NL requirements on static GUI prototypes and introduce a multimodal LLM-based agent for verifying complex functional and non-functional requirements in dynamic GUI applications through automatically generated and evaluated interaction trajectories. Overall, the proposed methods substantially reduce manual effort in GUI prototyping and requirements verification.

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01
软件工程与仓库智能11
代码质量与优化10
UI 与 GUI Agent21
个人知识与本体10
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。

2026 年 6 月

1无记录2无记录3无记录4无记录5无记录6无记录7无记录8无记录9无记录10无记录11无记录12无记录13无记录14无记录15无记录16无记录17无记录18无记录19无记录20无记录21无记录22无记录23无记录24无记录25无记录26无记录27无记录28无记录29无记录30无记录

2026 年 8 月

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(5 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(0 篇)

本轮该赛道没有候选论文。

软件工程与仓库智能(1 篇)

软件工程与仓库智能 · 6/30 · 2026-08-24反馈适得其反:小模型会重复刚失败的调用失败记录被当作纠正信息,但实验显示它会提高小模型重复失败调用的概率,且常见于多个模型与任务环境Feedback That Backfires: Why Small Language Model Agents Repeat the Call They Just Watched Fail

Agent harnesses record a failed tool call and its error message in the transcript and ask the model to continue, on the assumption that the error is corrective information. We measure whether it is. Defining the corrective gain of a failure record as the change in log-probability of re-emitting the action that just failed, we find the gain is negative for every instruction-tuned model we tested (6 checkpoints, 135M-1.7B, 4 families) in two environments: simulated tool calling and MBPP program repair. Normalised by action length the effect is about -1.03 nats per action token, a factor of 2.8 in the odds of each token, and holds on 90%-100% of individual items, not only on average. Over a fixed candidate set the probability of repeating the failed call rises from 0.06 to 0.54, and greedy decoding reproduces it token for token on 19% of items after the failure versus 0% before. Counterfactuals pairing the same call with a failure message, a success message, or a neutral acknowledgement separate two effects: the failed call's surface form accounts for 83% of the damage, while the semantic contribution of marking it failed is small and inconsistent in sign across environments. The problem is in the harness, not the model's grasp of error messages, and that predicts which remedies work. Replacing the verbatim call with a runtime-generated description of the failure removes 76% of the inversion at no token cost, and making previously-failed strings unreachable at the decoder acts on the same term. Two plausible remedies do not: an explicit "do not repeat" instruction leaves the measured quantity where it was, and deleting the failed attempt to retry from a clean context, the standard prescription for context contamination, is the worst harness we measured for repetition, because it restores the context that produced the failure. The study runs end to end on a CPU; all artefacts are released.

阅读 arXiv 原文

代码质量与优化(1 篇)

代码质量与优化 · 6/30 · 2026-08-21REFINE:多智能体循证Java代码重构面向Java文件级重构,多智能体结合静态分析识别坏味道、规划重构、转换并做行为保留检查REFINE: A Multi-Agent LLM Approach for Evidence-Guided Code Refactoring

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer new opportunities for automated code refactoring. However, generated changes must reduce targeted quality problems without introducing new issues or altering behaviour-relevant code structures. We introduce REFINE (Refactoring with Evidence-aware Flow for Integrated ageNtic Execution), a tool-agnostic, evidence-aware multi-agent approach for generating Java file-level refactoring candidates. REFINE combines static-analysis-guided smell identification, smell-informed planning, LLM-based transformation, automated re-analysis, preservation checks, and structured reporting. We evaluate REFINE on 450 Java files from 15 open-source systems, producing 1,350 model-pass outputs using OpenAI GPT-5.5, Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and Anthropic Claude Opus 4.8. REFINE reduces detected code smells by 68.26%, 72.79%, and 68.49% across the three configurations, respectively, with the strongest reductions observed for major smells. A matched 150-file direct-prompt baseline shows that REFINE achieves a higher median code-smell reduction with smaller edits and fewer public-method removals. However, broader quality improvements are inconsistent, and preservation checks reveal residual risks, including assert/fail-call changes and public-method removal. Therefore, REFINE outputs should be treated as refactoring candidates requiring compilation, testing, dependency analysis, and human review before adoption in repository- or system-level settings.

阅读 arXiv 原文

UI 与 GUI Agent(2 篇)

UI 与 GUI Agent · 9/30 · 2026-08-25从自然语言需求自动生成GUI原型并验证针对自然语言需求转GUI原型成本高、需求验证仍依赖人工的问题,探索预训练语言模型自动化原型与验证From Natural Language Requirements to Graphical User Interfaces: Automated Prototyping and Verification with Pretrained Language Models

Requirements elicitation is essential for developing interactive software systems, as it helps ensure that the resulting product meets stakeholder needs. Since elicitation typically relies on natural language (NL), misunderstandings can arise from its inherent ambiguity. Formal specifications can reduce ambiguity but require technical expertise. GUI prototyping therefore provides a valuable alternative by turning requirements into tangible visual artifacts that support communication, elicitation, and validation. However, creating high-fidelity prototypes remains time-consuming and costly. Similarly, requirements verification, which ensures that implementations conform to specified requirements, is still largely manual, while existing automated approaches are often limited to static, rule-based techniques. This work addresses two challenges: (C1) reducing the effort required to transform NL requirements into GUI prototypes, and (C2) reducing the effort required for requirements verification in GUI applications and prototypes. For C1, we introduce novel NL-based GUI retrieval and reranking methods, new benchmarks, and techniques for efficiently adapting LLMs to GUI generation, including proprietary GUI representations. Their effectiveness is demonstrated on a large benchmark with human annotations. For C2, we propose LLM-based methods for verifying semantically complex NL requirements on static GUI prototypes and introduce a multimodal LLM-based agent for verifying complex functional and non-functional requirements in dynamic GUI applications through automatically generated and evaluated interaction trajectories. Overall, the proposed methods substantially reduce manual effort in GUI prototyping and requirements verification.

阅读 arXiv 原文
UI 与 GUI Agent · 3/30 · 2026-08-25ViSculpt:以视觉为中心编辑三维网格免训练多智能体系统在Blender中通过GUI观察视口、模拟用户交互,对现有三维网格执行局部编辑ViSculpt: Visual-Centric Agentic Geometry Editing

3D geometry editing is a critical yet labor-intensive part of the graphics pipeline, requiring artists to translate creative intent into precise operations in complex professional software. Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for script-based 3D creation, but script generation is less suited to perception-driven editing of arbitrary existing meshes, where execution must remain visually grounded and untouched regions should be preserved. We present a \emph{visual-centric}, training-free multi-agent system that edits existing 3D meshes directly in Blender by emulating the iterative workflow of human artists. Rather than generating scripts or regenerating geometry, our system operates through the Blender GUI: multimodal LLM agents observe the viewport, reason about the current mesh state, and execute localized edits through simulated user interactions. Experiments on a curated benchmark provide initial evidence that this agentic approach can follow natural language instructions, perform representative localized mesh edits, and preserve the overall identity of the input asset. Our results highlight a complementary regime for language-driven 3D editing: direct in-place modification of existing meshes within the native 3D editing workflow. We view this work as an exploratory step toward visual-centric agentic geometry editing in professional graphics software.

阅读 arXiv 原文

个人知识与本体(1 篇)

个人知识与本体 · 3/30 · 2026-08-24SemReWrite:语义概念演变下的持续学习提出SemReWrite框架,在分类体系或概念定义演变时选择性更新过时的视觉语义映射并保留有效知识Continual Visual Learning under Evolving Semantic Concept Shift

Visual foundation models are commonly adapted under the assumption that the appearance of incoming data may change while the semantic meaning of the prediction task remains fixed. In long-lived visual systems, however, taxonomies, policies, and concept definitions can themselves evolve, causing the same visual evidence to require a different interpretation. We study this setting as evolving semantic concept shift and introduce SemReWrite, a framework for selectively updating obsolete visual--semantic mappings while preserving knowledge that remains valid. SemReWrite represents changes between old and revised semantic specifications, combines semantic discrepancy with sparse revised supervision to localize affected visual regions, and uses an input-dependent low-rank rewriting mechanism together with structured semantic memory, preservation, and obsolete-decision suppression. We further introduce EvoShift-Bench, spanning ImageNet, iNaturalist, CUB-200-2011, and DomainNet, with semantic transitions including class split, merge, boundary revision, insertion, partial redefinition, recurrence, and mixed semantic--appearance shift. To explicitly evaluate selective semantic revision, we introduce Rewrite Accuracy (RA) and Preservation Accuracy (PA) for affected and unaffected regions, respectively, Obsolete Retention (OR) for measuring residual outdated semantic associations, and the Selective Revision Score (SRS), which jointly summarizes rewriting and preservation performance. Experiments show that SemReWrite achieves a stronger balance between learning revised semantics and retaining unaffected knowledge than prompt replacement, conventional fine-tuning, parameter-efficient adaptation, and continual-learning strategies.

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。