arXiv preprint ·
One Assistant, Many Memories: Benchmarking Real-World Group Assistance When Recall Is Not Enough
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
The value of memory lies not only in recall but in using it to provide appropriate assistance. Recent benchmarks test memory use in personalisation and agentic tasks, but seldom evaluate assistance without fixed answers or integration across multiple participants. Group chats make both challenges more acute: an assistant must integrate information from multiple members, track revisions and conflicts over time, and produce one response for the group. Yet existing group memory benchmarks rely on synthetic conversations and inherit constrained evaluation from general memory benchmarks, focusing on recall against fixed answers or decisions over a closed set. We introduce GroupAssistBench, the first memory benchmark from real-world group conversations with a deployed group assistant, covering 80,299 messages in 50 groups and costing over $53K. Over the same histories, GroupAssistBench evaluates memory recall (L1) with reference answers and memory use (L2) with service requests without fixed answers across single, distributed, and conflicting memories (M1--M3). Requests are verified to require group history, memories are anchored to their sources, and L2 uses tailored rubrics with penalties derived from real user feedback. Across evaluations of frontier models with full context, retrieval methods, and memory systems, the strongest memory system rivals full context on recall but falls far behind on use, especially for distributed and conflicting memories. Together, two additions that relate retrieved memories and bind remembered facts as response constraints bring consistent gains, showing that group memory systems must improve use, not recall alone.
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 Computation & Language / NLP
Swapping the Judge Changes the Ranking: A Preregistered Study of Cross-Provider Replication in LLM-Judged System Comparisons
How Well Can Large Language Models Impersonate Individual Authors? A Comparative Evaluation
Same Rule, Different Verdicts: Rubric Language and Clause Structure in LLM Judges for Korean Support Dialogues
Phonological Knowledge of Chinese Characters in Language Models
When Strong Reasoners Join the Pool: Small Union Premiums and Costly Runaway Generations in LLM Routing
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP 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.