解决个性化智能体记忆过时却行为不变的问题,提升响应准确性。
When Memory Updates but Behavior Does Not: Repairing Implicit Stale Dependencies in Personalized Agent Responses

- 从存储状态反向审计生成内容,验证时间顺序而非语义更新
- 在400个场景中实现73.6分的严格单查询得分,比前代高5.0分
- 适合需要高可靠记忆更新的对话系统与个性化代理研发者
带有记忆增强的智能体虽知用户状态已过时,仍会基于旧值规划。STALE基准将此现象称为隐式策略适应(IPA)差距。我们发现一个结构成因:草案锚定的验证仅检查响应内容,而过时依赖通常未被说出。因此,StateAuditor采用反向审计,从存储状态指向草案。大模型从带时间戳的证据中提出旧到新的候选转移;确定性代码将每句引述绑定至单一条目,验证新证据确实更晚,仅允许经验证的转移触发修复。被验证的是来源与时间顺序——非语义替代。在完整的STALE协议下(400个场景,50次会话历史,每次查询独立响应),严格单查询VTA得分为0.736,相比前代0.686提升5.0分(95%置信区间[+2.9, +7.2]),几乎全部来自IPA和前提抵抗(PR)。第三方模型作为基准评委也复现了该增益(0.738对0.680)。在独立的跨族偏好演化基准HorizonBench上,完整草案-审计-修复流程结合黄金结构化存储,显著提升当前偏好准确率(用户聚类p<.01),但对照组显示主要增益来自草案侧审计本身;人工编撰的生命周期集无增益,限定了主张范围且虚假误判受控。在STALE上,对照组(同证据、适配器、调用预算)仅得0.692(比前代高0.6分,不显著),表明STALE增益源于转移机制而非额外上下文或调用量。本文不声称适用于通用智能体记忆。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Memory-augmented agents can know that a user's stored state is outdated and still plan around the old value. The STALE benchmark calls this the implicit policy adaptation (IPA) gap. We identify one structural contributor: draft-anchored verification checks what a response says, and in an open-ended response the stale dependency is usually unsaid. StateAuditor therefore audits in the opposite direction, from stored state to draft. An LLM proposes candidate old-to-new transitions from timestamped evidence; deterministic code pins each quotation to a single entry, checks that the new evidence really is newer, and lets only these verified transitions trigger repair. What is verified is provenance and chronology - not semantic supersession. On STALE's full protocol (400 scenarios, 50-session histories, one independent response per query), strict single-query VTA scores .736 against .686 for our locked predecessor under the same judge: a +5.0-point paired gain (95% CI [+2.9, +7.2]) coming almost entirely from IPA and premise resistance (PR). The benchmark's own judge, from a third model family, reproduces the gain (.738 vs. .680). On an independent cross-family preference-evolution benchmark (HorizonBench), the full draft-audit-repair pipeline over a gold-derived structured store raises current-preference accuracy (user-clustered p<.01), though a matched control shows most of this external gain is the draft-side audit itself; a harder authored lifecycle set gives no gain, bounding the claim while false invalidation stays controlled. On STALE, by contrast, a matched control (same evidence, adapter, and call budget) scores only .692 (+0.6 over the predecessor, n.s.), attributing the STALE gain to the transition machinery rather than added context or calls. We make no claim about general-purpose agent memory.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。