Anuncio

Agendator

Reservas online gratis para tu barbería o salón.

Página de reservas, agenda y recordatorios por email. Sin cookies ni anuncios para tus clientes.

Crear mi página gratis

Empresa

Anthropic

1118documentos

103últimos 7 días

arXiv AI Papers

A Computational Map of the Disaster Mental Health Research Landscape

When disasters strike, they not only damage infrastructure, buildings, and the economy, but also affect the mental health of affected populations. Research on the mental health effects of disasters has expanded rapidly and has become an important, well-funded area of psychology, public health, and related social sciences. However, the overall structure of this research landscape has not been systematically characterized. Using large language models, we conducted a review of all articles related to terms 'disaster' and 'mental health' indexed in PubMed. 7,859 articles' metadata were retrieved using the NCBI API, and then Claude Sonnet was used to extract structured variables from the abstracts. The results indicated that earthquakes and epidemics were the most commonly studied disasters while many other disasters such as heat and cold waves have received less attention. PTSD, depression, and anxiety were well investigated but many other mental health issues (e.g., aggression, suicide) are relatively ignored. Despite enjoying relatively large sample sizes (median = 452, IQR = 142 - 1,568), the field rarely utilizes machine learning algorithms. Hypothesis significance testing, reviews, qualitative methods, and structural equation modeling are respectively most common methods while agent-based modeling, machine learning, casual inference, and NLP each appear in less than 1% of articles. Studies are limited to a small number of countries, particularly the United States, Japan, and China, while many disaster-prone regions remain substantially underrepresented. This LLM-assisted computational map provides a broad overview of the disaster mental health literature while highlighting important methodological gaps, with particular emphasis on the underutilization of computational methods that could help advance the field.

en
arXiv AI Papers

When Instruction Files Go Stale: Documentation Debt and Hidden Cost in Coding Agents

LLM-based coding agents such as Claude Code are guided by repository instruction files (also called context files or agent configuration files) like AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md, which are read in every agent session. As any documentation artifact, these files can fall behind the code and become stale (e.g., a test folder moves, but the file still points to the old one). In technical debt terms, such a stale instruction is documentation debt, and its interest is the cost it adds to every later agent session. Evaluations that check only task success can miss this cost, and the stale file can persist. In this study, we ask what leads agents to act on a stale instruction, how it affects their behavior and at what cost, and how they recover. We study three real-world stale instructions from active open-source repositories in depth, each a different kind of guidance: a test command, a code location, and a procedure for adding a component. Agents fix 22 maintenance tasks under three versions of each instruction (left stale, corrected to the current path, and removed), with the code and the task held fixed, and we analyze 732 trajectories of two models at the level of individual tool calls. We find that agents follow stale guidance when it is relevant to their tasks, sometimes even when correct information is available elsewhere. On the stale test command, Claude Sonnet 5.5 needed about two extra tool calls per run, a third more than with the corrected command; in the other cases, we could not detect a difference. Although agents generally recovered from the immediate failures, none repaired the underlying instruction file. Correcting the instructions eliminated operations on obsolete paths, while removing them prevented most. Our findings show that task success alone can hide the costs of documentation debt, highlighting the need to evaluate agent behavior beyond final outcomes.

en
arXiv AI Papers

DRAFT-Bench: Evaluating Frontier Agents Across the Professional Design Lifecycle

Can frontier general-purpose agents understand client intent, explore creative directions, execute revisions, and prepare production deliverables? We introduce DRAFT-Bench (Design Reliability Across Feedback and Tasks), a lifecycle-oriented evaluation of requirement elicitation, creative exploration, constrained editing, iterative revision, and production handoff. Its Requirement-to-Artifact framework links evolving requirements, protected properties, artifact versions, and delivery obligations. We compare native Codex/Astra and Claude Code across 35 design briefs under 43 conditions, alongside a separate 40-scenario RFQ track. Astra completes 43/43 design conditions and Claude 35/43. All scored core runs receive full structural credit, yet on the 28 core conditions scored for both systems, semantic checks flag violations in 11 for Astra and 5 for Claude; these are model judgments, not expert-confirmed failure rates. RFQ coverage is high, but success ordering changes across cohorts. SKU expansion, revision dependencies, and White ink files expose ambiguity among unmet obligations, missing inputs, and evaluator interpretations. These findings separate execution, requirement compliance, and professional acceptance. Unpaired tracks and different tools preclude claims of RFQ-to-delivery success, factory acceptance, or a pure model ranking.

en