arXiv preprint ·
Suggested Is Not Superseded: A Pre-Registered Evaluation of a System-One Model as a Memory-Retirement Gate
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Long-term memory for assistants needs a gate that decides when a new utterance retires an old stored claim. Benchmark labels for this step mark a pair as changed or not, so they cannot tell a gate that acts on established change from one that acts on a hint. We write a task contract that separates the two (SUPERSEDED vs. NEEDS-CONFIRMATION vs. COMPATIBLE), label 500 test pairs built from STALE (change pairs plus same-user controls) with three LLM annotators and two human adjudicators (one author and a second annotator; provenance reported), and evaluate Jev, a typed "System One" decision model, under pre-registered hypotheses. Of the 179 test pairs STALE marks as changed, 72 meet the contract's bar for an established change. Jev never retired a claim on 141 same-conversation non-changes. Its failure is premature retirement: the binary gate retires 39.2% of claims whose change is only suggested. A three-way decision cuts this to 15.5% at a 15.3-point detection cost, which misses our pre-registered 10-point budget, and it lands on the binary gate's own threshold frontier; these verdicts hold under three readings of the gold labels. On a held-out vault scored against a second annotator's labels, a cascade that escalated uncertain cases to a reasoning model and looked best on development data was indistinguishable from simply raising the threshold (premature retirement 26.8% vs. 6.5% on dev). Part of the gap comes from the gold labels: relative to that annotator's reading, LLM-majority gold shares most of its errors with a same-family escalation model, and an identity for binary labels says how much such shared errors hide. The rest is small-sample selection on development data. For builders this means a binary score should not be wired to delete: route suggested changes to pending evidence, and do not trust a cascade selected on development data of this size.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
MoMaTune: Model, Match, Then Tune Language Models for Numerical Records
Computational Reflective Equilibrium for Agentic AI: A Rawlsian Alignment Scaffold for Governance
Framework for an AI-Ready ARPES Community Database
When Does Compensating Inherited Quantization Error Help? Mean-Square Guarantees for Layer-Wise Quantization and Their Limits
ClinEdge: An Expert-Graded Benchmark of Real Patient Edge Cases Where Frontier Multimodal Models Fail
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.