Remember, Verify, or Ask? Cross-Family Evaluation of Memory Commitment in LLM Agents

arXiv:2608.195642026-08-21

AI 비서가 뭘 기억할지 결정할 때, '물어봐야 할 순간'에 되레 세상에 확인하고 넘어간다

연구팀은 LLM(거대언어모델) 에이전트가 대화 중 얻은 정보를 영구 기억으로 저장할지, 그때만 쓰고 버릴지, 다시 확인할지, 사용자에게 되물을지를 판단하는 능력을 테스트하는 벤치마크 MCB를 만들었다. Claude와 Qwen 두 계열 모델을 비교한 결과, 두 모델 모두 애매한 상황에서 사용자에게 물어보기보다 세상(외부 정보)을 확인하는 쪽을 훨씬 더 잘 선택했다. 프롬프트(지시문)를 바꾸면 정답률이나 잘못된 저장 비율은 개선되지만, 사용자에게 물어봐야 하는 상황을 놓치는 문제는 그대로 남았다.

논문 원문 초록 (영문)

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.

저자 · Baichuan Li, Junyi Yao, Zihao Zheng