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

arXiv:2608.195642026-08-21

AI助手在该向你提问的时候,却更愿意自己去核实事实

研究团队构建了名为MCB的评测基准,用来检验大语言模型(LLM)智能体能否正确判断:对话中获得的信息该永久记住、仅当次使用、重新核实,还是该向用户提问确认。他们对Claude和Qwen两个模型家族进行测试,发现两者都更倾向于去核实事实,而不是在信息含糊时主动询问用户。通过提示词技巧可以提高准确率或减少错误的永久存储,但模型该问不问的问题始终没有解决。

论文原文摘要（英文）

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.

作者 · Baichuan Li, Junyi Yao, Zihao Zheng