Issue with arXiv Paper Indexing on Hugging Face Papers-2026/03/30
Hi Hugging Face team, I’m unable to create a Papers page for my arXiv preprint, which also prevents me from claiming authorship. Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.24145 Error msgs: Indexing failed or took too long When: 2026-03-30 2 posts - 2 participants Read full topic
Could not retrieve the full article text.
Read on discuss.huggingface.co →discuss.huggingface.co
https://discuss.huggingface.co/t/issue-with-arxiv-paper-indexing-on-hugging-face-papers-2026-03-30/174787Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
paperarxiv
TurboQuant, KIVI, and the Real Cost of Long-Context KV Cache
<h1> I Built a Free KV Cache Calculator for LLM Inference </h1> <p>When people talk about LLM deployment costs, they usually start with model weights.</p> <p>That makes sense, but once you push context length higher, KV cache becomes one of the real bottlenecks. In many long-context setups, it is the<br> dynamic memory cost that quietly starts dominating deployment decisions.</p> <p>I built a small free tool to make that easier to estimate:</p> <p><a href="https://turbo-quant.com/en/kv-cache-calculator" rel="noopener noreferrer">TurboQuant Tools</a></p> <p>It is a practical KV cache calculator for LLM inference. You can use it to estimate memory for:</p> <ul> <li>MHA models</li> <li>GQA models</li> <li>MQA models</li> <li>different context lengths</li> <li>different batch sizes</li> <li>di
Balancing Efficiency and Empathy: Healthcare Providers' Perspectives on AI-Supported Workflows for Serious Illness Conversations in the Emergency Department
arXiv:2506.00241v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Serious Illness Conversations (SICs), discussions about values and care preferences for patients with life-threatening illness, rarely occur in Emergency Departments (EDs), despite evidence that early conversations improve care alignment and reduce unnecessary interventions. We interviewed 11 ED providers to identify challenges in SICs and opportunities for technology support, with a focus on AI. Our analysis revealed a four-stage SIC workflow (identification, preparation, conduction, documentation) and barriers at each stage, including fragmented patient information, limited time and space, lack of conversational guidance, and burdensome documentation. Providers expressed interest in AI systems for synthesizing information, supporting re
Locating Risk: Task Designers and the Challenge of Risk Disclosure in RAI Content Work
arXiv:2505.24246v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As AI systems are increasingly tested and deployed in open-ended and high-stakes domains, crowdworkers are often tasked with responsible AI (RAI) content work. These tasks include labeling violent content, moderating disturbing text, or simulating harmful behavior for red teaming exercises to shape AI system behaviors. While prior research efforts have highlighted the risks to worker well-being associated with RAI content work, far less attention has been paid to how these risks are communicated to workers by task designers or individuals who design and post RAI tasks. Existing transparency frameworks and guidelines, such as model cards, datasheets, and crowdworksheets, focus on documenting model information and dataset collection process
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers
AI Inspires New Research Topics In Materials Science - miragenews.com
<a href="https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMihwFBVV95cUxQRlVFdkRBaHRvYkJJdFRlMTZmajEzeFRPU0hGWWdfbi02V1FnTUdVQ2pmY2VZLUV2NlB4V3BFdEVlSVZkUlhRSTZaNWFKMmcyWXJYbnNqbUhMTmp0NnFtMEppOXlPZkJSNHJfck5VSEVYcmUtX1k2QkJlR1BvUEdTTkp3UmlYRkk?oc=5" target="_blank">AI Inspires New Research Topics In Materials Science</a> <font color="#6f6f6f">miragenews.com</font>
From brain scans to alloys: Teaching AI to make sense of complex research data - Penn State University
<a href="https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMiwAFBVV95cUxPZDFHdkptQ2VUM2hmWjhqQkxoRnBiTWoxMXRRR21MUG5TamdUMlFRWmhvYVNHaFVNREVKU3VmSnVOdDVZYnNLb2ppYXRVRTZmVFVMV1pLTlVhUm9ybTNZbGtvZTdIMnIyMHNpOEk5aU9TSmxxS2Y4V2MwazYwY3JlX1Axbk1nd3pfcWhFdUJaaDJWRXJaMFIyTTROcmFHeXI3ZzFudXJ2M1h6UHI1LW1Ca1dta2RkM3BiYndocGk3Yjg?oc=5" target="_blank">From brain scans to alloys: Teaching AI to make sense of complex research data</a> <font color="#6f6f6f">Penn State University</font>
Locating Risk: Task Designers and the Challenge of Risk Disclosure in RAI Content Work
arXiv:2505.24246v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As AI systems are increasingly tested and deployed in open-ended and high-stakes domains, crowdworkers are often tasked with responsible AI (RAI) content work. These tasks include labeling violent content, moderating disturbing text, or simulating harmful behavior for red teaming exercises to shape AI system behaviors. While prior research efforts have highlighted the risks to worker well-being associated with RAI content work, far less attention has been paid to how these risks are communicated to workers by task designers or individuals who design and post RAI tasks. Existing transparency frameworks and guidelines, such as model cards, datasheets, and crowdworksheets, focus on documenting model information and dataset collection process
Togedule: Scheduling Meetings with Large Language Models and Adaptive Representations of Group Availability
arXiv:2505.01000v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Scheduling is a perennial-and often challenging-problem for many groups. Existing tools are mostly static, showing an identical set of choices to everyone, regardless of the current status of attendees' inputs and preferences. In this paper, we propose Togedule, an adaptive scheduling tool that uses large language models to dynamically adjust the pool of choices and their presentation format. With the initial prototype, we conducted a formative study (N=10) and identified the potential benefits and risks of such an adaptive scheduling tool. Then, after enhancing the system, we conducted two controlled experiments, one each for attendees and organizers (total N=66). For each experiment, we compared scheduling with verbal messages, shared c
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!