저장한 도구도구 추천
FOXAI SEARCH

전체 검색

뉴스 기사 218

모델 업데이트

Verified but Vacuous: Three Failure Surfaces of LLM-Driven Verified Code Generation

arXiv:2611.05590v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: What should ``verified'' mean when evaluating LLM-generated code? Many existing pipelines report a single verification number. We argue this collapses three distinct properties measured in a conditional audit sequence: verifier acceptance (Surface A), \emph{syntactic specification binding (Surface B: does the proof obligation bind to the spec?), and \emph{semantic specification fidelity} (Surface C: does the spec capture the informal requirement?). Two empirical demonstrations show the surfaces separate. \textbf{First ($A \neq B$), via Li@Opus (a same-model reproduction of \citet{li2025dafny}'s Dafny-as-intermediate-representation (IR) pipeline under Claude Opus 4.7) on three Python benchmarks}: it reaches \textbf{99.1\% verifier acceptance} on HumanEval while only \textbf{1.9\%} carry a certificate binding to a spec-defined predicate or function. \textbf{Second ($B \neq C$), via VCG on two Rust benchmarks}: we use VCG (which is our own in-house Dafny-as-intermediate pipeline) on Rust because the Rust target lets us enforce fully-verifiable output (every component ships as a Dafny certificate, ensures-binding gate passing by construction). Even inside that construction, \textbf{11.48\% (MBPP-Rust) and 14.82\% (VeriContest LC slice) of structurally-verified samples still fail hidden tests}. On the LC slice of VeriContest, \textbf{VCG's reported End2End rate is 7.79\% (535/6870).} The cited external rates are 5.51\% (GPT-5.5) and 1.88\% (single-shot Opus 4.7). These give descriptive differences of 2.3 percentage points and 4.14$\times$, respectively; task-budget, repair and harness differences prevent a matched-performance claim.

번역 서비스가 일시 중지되어 원문을 표시합니다.
arXiv cs.AI
agent-frameworks

VirtualTrialHarness: Coordinating Agentic Operationalization of Virtual Trial Protocols Across Complex Clinical Schemas

arXiv:2611.05551v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Virtual trials use routinely collected clinical data to evaluate treatment strategies, but translating a study protocol into an executable analysis requires determining how clinical concepts and study requirements should be represented in the available data and applied consistently across the workflow. These decisions depend on local data representations and operational conventions and can involve source selection, patient and encounter identity, linkage, and temporal interpretation. Here we introduce VirtualTrialHarness (VTHarness), an agent framework that coordinates virtual-trial operationalization by selecting reusable procedural skills for each workflow stage and uses explicit contracts to maintain consistent study decisions across stages. We also introduce VTBenchmark for evaluating source selection and cohort construction. Across three complex synthetic environments, VTHarness successfully produced all required cohort outputs matching the references in 95.1% of workflows after requirement clarification, compared with 60.4% using retrieval from the same procedural corpus. Procedural skills improved source recovery across three language models and increased source overlap with analyst code in 13 Mayo Clinic cases. Site-specific adaptation enabled reference-matched cohort execution across eight MIMIC-IV tasks. Within the Mayo Clinic Virtual Trials Program, the framework supported investigator review of cohort construction and endpoint analysis. These findings support coordinating procedural guidance with workflow decisions to improve virtual-trial implementation across complex clinical schemas.

번역 서비스가 일시 중지되어 원문을 표시합니다.
arXiv cs.AI
coding-engineering

Introducing Vercel Schedules

Vercel Schedules enables applications and agents to create, modify, or cancel one-time and recurring tasks dynamically through code without redeployment. It supports both static schedules defined in configuration files and dynamic schedules managed via SDK, CLI, or API during runtime. The service integrates with Vercel Queues to trigger tasks at specified times, allowing apps to handle work like data cleanup or AI-driven summaries securely and efficiently. Users can test schedules in preview environments before production, and the feature is now available in Public Beta.

번역 서비스가 일시 중지되어 원문을 표시합니다.
Vercel
training-alignment

Predictive gains, causal losses: why interventional competence cannot be learned from data alone

arXiv:2611.03861v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retaining predictive gains can require persistent errors in a model's response to interventions. For deterministic predictors with finite second moments under squared-error loss, any observational advantage over the best predictor using only an outcome's direct causes requires dependence on other inputs, regardless of the learning rule. When admissible interventions vary inputs while preserving the worldly outcome, this dependence yields a positive lower bound on root-mean-square intervention-response error. We identify conditions under which population gradient updates introduce this dependence from a parent-only baseline or damage a previously correct mechanism through shared parameters while improving other predictions. These dependencies can also make model behavior vary with how the same intervention is realized. We characterize interventional alignment through a common output mapping across internal states and physical processes realizing the same intervention target and relevant context. Correction is limited by the causal hypotheses currently admitted within inquiry. The relevant hypothesis class comprises these causal alternatives, rather than the function class the computational system could in principle represent. For predictions restricted to these alternatives, interventional mean error cannot fall below the best approximation they permit, whether evidence is observational or interventional. Reducing error below a positive limit requires admitting better hypotheses, which may entail revising the causal variables, mechanism structure, or intervention interpretation. Interventional criticism constrains replacements without determining them. We conjecture that reliably acquiring and maintaining interventional competence when causal commitments fail requires autonomous participation in proposing alternatives, testing their consequences, and revising them in response to error.

번역 서비스가 일시 중지되어 원문을 표시합니다.
arXiv cs.AI
모델 업데이트

Same Rule, Different Verdicts: Rubric Language and Clause Structure in LLM Judges for Korean Support Dialogues

arXiv:2611.04091v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Services that operate in Korean often write their evaluation rubrics in Korean and hand them to an LLM judge. We test whether a judge's verdict depends on the language of the rubric and on how a rubric item is phrased. We write 12 criteria for support dialogues in four clause structures (affirmative, negated, conditional, exception) such that two pairs of structures have the same meaning, and we give each item in Korean and in English. Six low-cost models from three providers, plus one reference model, judge 60 translated ESConv dialogues and 144 constructed boundary cases under every combination (51,744 requests across the seven models). The analysis plan was fixed and committed before data collection. Cross-provider agreement is lower with Korean rubrics than with English rubrics (Cohen's kappa 0.687 vs. 0.745; difference -0.058, 95% CI [-0.072,-0.045]). Disagreement concentrates in negated, conditional, and exception items (odds ratio 5.6 relative to affirmative items). A single model changes its verdict between two items with the same meaning in 11-15% of cases. Two hypotheses are not supported: models from the same provider do not agree more than models from different providers, and adding paired examples does not reduce the language gap. We measure consistency only; no human labels are used, and all materials were drafted by an LLM.

번역 서비스가 일시 중지되어 원문을 표시합니다.
arXiv cs.CL