System prompts are instructions configured by developers to govern the behaviors of foundation models in AI applications. They are used throughout commercial AI products, but are rarely disclosed to the public or regulators, creating a serious trust and accountability gap in the wide deployment of AI systems. In this paper, we introduce Artificial Intelligence System Prompt Assurance (AISPA), a user-centric framework for systematically auditing system prompts in AI systems. AISPA examines specific parts of a system prompt and evaluates them along eight dimensions that matter to users. We then use this framework to review 3,249 instructions from system prompts in 88 commercial AI products, classifying each instruction as either protective (of users) or problematic. Our audit surfaces four core findings. First, system prompt design varies substantially across products and developers, with some organizations averaging over 60 protective instructions per product while others average fewer than 5. Second, protective instructions are widely adopted but shallow in scope: 98.9% of products contain at least one, yet only 24% cover all eight dimensions of the AISPA taxonomy. Third, system prompts have grown steadily longer and more protective of users, suggesting that user protection is becoming a more visible concern in commercial prompt design. Fourth, despite this progress, problematic instructions remain pervasive: roughly 40% of products contain at least one instruction that works against user interests, and protective and problematic instructions frequently coexist within the same prompt. Our findings highlight the need for greater transparency, standardization, and independent oversight for system prompts in commercial AI products.
Xiangning Lin, Shenzhe Zhu, Shu Yang et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
While current AI agents support increasingly long context windows, tool use, and skill execution for long-horizon tasks, they still require memory systems to effectively leverage historical experience. Existing memory frameworks typically rely on fixed storage, retrieval, and summarization mechanisms, which can be rigid across different tasks and often require manual tuning. To address this limitation, we propose SelfMem, a self-optimizing memory framework. Inspired by prior work on self-improving AI, we follow the principle of"teaching an agent to fish rather than giving it a fish."Instead of forcing the model to follow a predefined memory strategy or format, SelfMem provides an environment with memory tools and feedback signals that allow the agent to explore, evaluate, and refine its own memory strategy. Our results show that SelfMem consistently outperforms retrieval, compression, and agent-memory baselines on BEAM across conversation scales from 100K to 1M tokens. Compared with the strongest baseline, SelfMem improves the official score by 48.7%, 40.8%, and 41.9% at 100K, 500K, and 1M, respectively. Further question-type analysis shows broad robustness across diverse memory demands, and our optimization study shows that model-guided strategy refinement further improves performance.
Shu Yang, Junchao Wu, Derek F. Wong et al.· 1 citation
LLM judge panels are a standard evaluation tool, but prior work reports highly correlated panel errors: nine judges provide roughly the effective information of two independent ones, and aggregation closes only a small fraction of the gap. A natural remedy--a signal from a different evidence source, e.g., executing a test suite--produced no distinguishable change in the panel's effective-vote count at scale (-0.04, 95\% CI [-0.10, +0.02]). Aggregate dependence and conditional decision utility are different questions. Elementary majority arithmetic fixes the affected set for single-ballot substitution: only decisions with a one-vote margin can change. The empirical question is whether panel error rates rise and useful substitutions concentrate there. They do: the entire accuracy gain concentrates on these pivotal queries, where it is large (+10.4 to +23.3 percentage points across three headline configurations), and is exactly zero elsewhere. We confirm the pattern across three code benchmarks and four panel sizes (a 9-judge extension and 56 dependent subsampling checks, gain +6.5 to +16.1 percentage points). On HumanEval+/MBPP+, a majority-side replacement rule raises overall accuracy from 82.44\% to 85.62\% while invoking the signal on 16.2\% of queries; signal-only remains stronger at 87.60\%. Thus population-level dependence diagnostics and margin-stratified utility are complementary, and the affected-set characterization yields a call-reduction rule for any specified single-ballot substitution policy.
Shu Yang· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
