Family-level and seed-stability analyses show that example-level accuracy overstates counterfactual consistency: complete four-way family success is rare, and an exploratory follow-up that elicits decomposed semantic evidence fails to improve routing for the cleanly evaluated endpoint.
Abstract
Personalized agents must decide whether retrieved user memory should be used, ignored, updated, or queried before it affects a current task. We use this setting to develop an empirical audit protocol for structured intermediate outputs: first audit dataset shortcuts, then isolate bundled prompt changes, check whether intermediate labels are answer-associated, test decomposed semantic evidence, and audit provider-level execution failures. A 480-example synthetic development set initially suggested large gains from a state-structured prompt bundle, but TF-IDF diagnostics showed lexical separability and no positive standalone Ignore cases. We therefore construct a frozen 160-example controlled counterfactual set with 40 matched four-way families and rule-derived reference policies. On this set, exposing the four state definitions improves accuracy, but an isolated explicit state-output field does not significantly improve policy accuracy for Llama-3.3-70B and gives only a marginal, non-significant gain for GPT-OSS-120B. Supplying benchmark-associated state labels shifts policy predictions, but because those labels deterministically map to policies, this is a label-conditioning diagnostic rather than evidence of a faithful internal mechanism. Family-level and seed-stability analyses further show that example-level accuracy overstates counterfactual consistency: complete four-way family success is rare. An exploratory follow-up that elicits decomposed semantic evidence also fails to improve routing for the cleanly evaluated endpoint; the corresponding GPT-OSS condition was unavailable because of provider-side request validation. We evaluate policy classification only, not downstream responses, tool actions, or memory-store mutation.
A minimal benchmark design and candidate reporting metrics for user-conditioned adaptation are proposed and a concrete design requirement for future personal-agent evaluation, with metrics used as reporting tools for that requirement.
Pinyan Qian, Su Wang, Yihang Chen et al.· 2 citations
GPM is introduced, an auditable bitemporal state-transition model with source-bound admission, derived lifecycle state, current public barriers, and fail-closed structured release with bounded contract and implementation results, not open-world model accuracy or evidence of world truth.
For information access systems, it is not enough for outputs or answers to be relevant or correct; they must also be permitted. This paper highlights a research gap: non-disclosure obligations often concern propositions that must not be stated, while deployed Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems enforce restrictions through record-level handling such as document removal or access-control lists. Such systems can appear compliant while still disclosing revoked facts in generated answers. Most RAG evaluations fail to assess this important aspect of compliance. We explore the nature of this gap and introduce Forgetting-by-Design (FBD), a mechanism-agnostic audit that runs probes across paired system states before and after revocation. FBD separates compliance into two observable channels---retrieval/citation exposure and answer-level disclosure or abstention ---and reports the cost of compliance using matched lawful controls and substitution-aware utility signals. We instantiate FBD in a reproducible RAG setting and show how the resulting report card reveals failures that single metrics miss: retrieval exposure can be suppressed while answer-level leakage persists, and interventions that reduce disclosure can still degrade lawful utility or collapse citation coverage.
Leila Tavakoli, Mark Sanderson· Annual International ACM SIG...· 0 citations
A routing decision can be revised at the next transaction, but a latched source exclusion persists across later decisions. We ask what evidence should authorize these unequal-persistence actions when finite-population auditing and learning share a budget. ALIVE (Action-Layered Intervention via Evidence) is an auditable control layer: one randomized without-replacement prefix supplies cached evidence, heuristic warnings drive non-latching floor-bounded routing, and only two fresh simultaneous certificate separations may latch an exclusion request subject to capacity-feasible activation. Conditional on fixed support and labels under an ideal uniform audit permutation, any predictable controller preserving this interface inherits an anytime familywise bound of \delta on acting against a source that fails the pre-fixed absolute or relative strict-majority-disagreement predicate. With a published known-size, all-strict-majority PPR engine, median evidence count fell from 304 to 96 identities in e40 and from 171 to 62 in e60, while both engines used 48 in e80. In the matched CIFAR controller, the persistent-action layer added +0.1935 accuracy-AUBC percentage points over routing-only in all ten paired seed clusters. The +0.1954-point full-system contrast against CBR was also positive but did not meet the predeclared multiplicity-adjusted criterion (conditional Holm-adjusted sign-flip reference value =.097656). On a fixed natural panel, exploratory PPR used a median closure prefix of 95 rather than 105 for exploratory Serfling/FPC, but still exposed 88.0% of the panel and had no downstream task. Together these results map a restraint--power--cost--utility boundary: the action contract controls a defined persistent decision, while net value depends on evidence margin, audit cost, and budget regime.
Persistent memory can personalize an LLM agent, but an incorrect durable update can silently distort future behavior. We study the memory-clarification boundary: whether interaction-derived information should be persisted, used only in the current context, re-verified, or clarified with the user. MCB contains 140 primary scenarios, split into 70 development and 70 held-out items, plus a separate 70-item contrast set. It evaluates both action labels and structured tool-call selection. Two non-authors independently label the 70 held-out primary and 70 contrast items (97.1% agreement, Cohen's kappa = 0.962); a blind third resolves four disagreements, replacing eight author labels by non-author majority. Across Claude and Qwen, models verify changing facts more reliably than they ask users to resolve ambiguity. Bare Qwen asks on 0/12 clarification items while verifying 12/18 freshness items. Few-shot prompting raises accuracy from 0.557 to 0.771 (paired delta = +0.214, Holm-adjusted exact McNemar p_H = 0.002), yet clarification recall remains 0.333. The policy prompt reduces erroneous persistence from 0.243 to 0.100 (p_H = 0.038), although its accuracy gain is not significant. Label-tool agreement is 57% for each Claude model and 23% for Qwen; Qwen accuracy falls from 0.557 to 0.343 (p_H = 0.047). Memory evaluation must test both stated decisions and tool-call choices.
LLM agents are moving from single-prompt use to long task streams in which reusable memory becomes a core capability for terminal, software-engineering, and web tasks. Such memory is useful only when stored experience remains reliable across hundreds of interactions, but two failure modes break that assumption in practice. The first is unreliable admission: failed trajectories,accidental successes, and misleading observations enter memory because they appear relevant, then mislead later decisions. The second is memory drift: long-running banks accumulate duplicate, stale, and conflicting records that retrieval alone cannot repair. MemGuard's key distinction is to treat verifier output not as a one-shot filter, but as persistent lifecycle metadata. It converts multi-criteria score-token verification into reward, confidence, label, and uncertainty descriptors that are attached to every candidate before activation and reused during retrieval, conflict resolution, summarization, and archival. We evaluate MemGuard on Terminal-Bench 2.0, SWE-Bench Verified, WebArena, and Mind2Web across four backbones, comparing against four memory baselines plus a verifier-only control under matched runtime budgets. Averaged over five seeds, MemGuard achieves the best success metric and lowest average steps in all 16 backbone-benchmark settings, improving over ReasoningBank, the strongest prior baseline among the memory methods we evaluate, with a largest gain of 7.9 success-rate points on WebArena, 5.6 step-success-rate points on Mind2Web, and 2.4-3.5 points on terminal and software-engineering benchmarks. Code is available at https://github.com/whyyyyy123/MemGuard.
Haoyu Wang, Guangyuan Dong, He Liang et al.· 1 citation
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
