pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.30087 · v1 · pith:MTYMJ57Fnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 💻 cs.AI

Selective QA over Conflicting Multi-Source Personal Memory: A Diagnostic Testbed and Method Comparison

Tiancheng Yang , Matthias Schonlau , Ilia Sucholutsky This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 07:49 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords selective QAconflicting sourcesmulti-source memoryfusion resolverabstentionbenchmarkpersonal AIreasoning types
0
0 comments X

The pith

Trained fusion resolvers achieve 80.3 percent accuracy on selective QA over conflicting multi-source personal memories, outperforming prompt-only LLMs at 70 percent.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a benchmark to test how AI systems handle selective question answering when evidence comes from multiple personal memory sources that may conflict or be incomplete. This setup isolates whether mistakes arise from the evidence itself or from the step that resolves conflicts. The benchmark consists of 18 question templates across eight reasoning types, drawn from 480 personas with controlled distortions and known correct answers. Evaluations across baselines, structured fusion methods, and frontier LLMs show that a trained fusion resolver reaches 80.3 percent accuracy while the strongest prompt-only LLM reaches 70.0 percent. When abstention is allowed, the same resolver attains 85.3 percent selective accuracy at 78.3 percent coverage, exceeding the LLM's 71.0 percent selective accuracy at 95.4 percent coverage, and different models show distinct strengths across reasoning types.

Core claim

The central claim is that the introduced diagnostic testbed reveals trained fusion methods as superior to prompt-only large language models for handling conflicting evidence in multi-source personal memory scenarios, with the best fusion resolver achieving 80.3 percent accuracy versus 70.0 percent for LLMs, and improved selective accuracy when abstention is permitted.

What carries the argument

The diagnostic testbed of 18 question templates across 8 reasoning types with controlled source distortions and deterministic ground truth, which isolates the performance of the conflict-resolution step in selective QA.

If this is right

  • Error sources in QA systems can be attributed more precisely to evidence issues versus resolution logic.
  • Trained fusion approaches are more effective than direct LLM prompting for persistent memory applications.
  • Abstention mechanisms improve accuracy at the cost of lower answer coverage.
  • Performance varies by reasoning type, indicating the need for method selection based on query characteristics.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Personal AI agents could benefit from incorporating similar fusion resolvers to manage real user memory conflicts.
  • The released dataset and code enable further development of specialized conflict resolution techniques.
  • Extending the benchmark to include more dynamic or user-specific distortions could test robustness in practice.
  • The varying model strengths suggest potential for ensemble methods combining different approaches.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark's 18 question templates across 8 reasoning types with controlled source distortions and deterministic ground truth sufficiently capture the complexities of real-world conflicting multi-source personal memory scenarios.

What would settle it

If evaluations on actual deployed personal AI agents with real user memories show that LLM baselines close the performance gap or reverse the ranking observed on the benchmark.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.30087 by Ilia Sucholutsky, Matthias Schonlau, Tiancheng Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: A personal-memory agent sees five memory sources that disagree. Direct prompting can over-trust [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Data-generating process (DGP) as a DAG. Top row, generation: persona (L1) → latent 30-day event log (L2) → 5 source-specific streams (L3) with schema filtering, bias, noise, and missingness → NL memory → LLM-extracted atoms µˆ. Bottom row, evaluation: ground truth fq(L2, L3, q) is computed deterministically with no circular dependency on extraction. The answer methods consume µˆ and are scored against GT. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Answer-only macro accuracy. Points show the main comparison with 95% persona-level bootstrap CIs. Filled circles: T0/T1/T2 methods. For each T3 LLM family, D and S mark Direct and Schema-Aware on the same row. Dashed lines mark the strongest LLM (70.0%) and DSNBF on µ ∗ (82.3%). (persona, seed, question, source) cells. At the instance level, Source Reachability is a GT-aided probe: 93.2% of instances have … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Selective QA: coverage vs. selective accuracy. Coverage is the answered fraction; top-right is better. Square = SSB, circles = fusion, triangles = LLM self-reported SKIP. Dashed grey segments mark Pareto-optimal deployable methods. Values are in Appendix D.1. resolver and 19% to the input. The interaction term is essentially zero, so the two effects are close to additive in this comparison. We read the 81/… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Per-type diagnostic heatmap. Colored-table view of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Emerging personal AI agents are moving toward persistent, multi-source memory. This creates an evaluation problem: systems must decide how to use conflicting or incomplete evidence; they cannot just retrieve facts from one clean history. Existing benchmarks rarely show whether an error came from the evidence given to a method or from the method's conflict-resolution step. We study this as selective QA over conflicting multi-source personal memory: systems answer based on conflicting, sometimes incomplete sources, or abstain when evidence is insufficient. We develop a benchmark containing 18 question templates across 8 reasoning types, 480 personas, 4 random seeds, and 34,560 instances, with controlled source distortions and deterministic ground truth. We evaluate the performance of baselines without access to any source, access to a single source, structured fusion methods, and frontier LLMs. The best trained fusion resolver reaches 80.3% accuracy, while the strongest prompt-only LLM baseline reaches 70.0%. With abstention, the same resolver reaches 85.3% selective accuracy at 78.3% coverage and the best LLM reaches 71.0% selective accuracy at 95.4% coverage. Different models have different strengths across reasoning types. We release the data, code, cached model outputs, and data-generating process for reuse.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a diagnostic benchmark for selective question answering in the presence of conflicting multi-source personal memory. The benchmark includes 18 question templates spanning 8 reasoning types, generated from 480 personas across 4 random seeds for a total of 34,560 instances, with controlled source distortions and deterministic ground truth. The authors evaluate no-source baselines, single-source access, structured fusion methods, and frontier LLMs, reporting that the best trained fusion resolver achieves 80.3% accuracy (compared to 70.0% for the strongest prompt-only LLM baseline). With an abstention option, the resolver reaches 85.3% selective accuracy at 78.3% coverage, while the best LLM reaches 71.0% selective accuracy at 95.4% coverage. Different models exhibit different strengths across reasoning types. All data, code, cached model outputs, and the data-generating process are released for reuse.

Significance. If the reported results hold, this paper makes a useful contribution by providing a controlled testbed that isolates the conflict-resolution step in multi-source memory scenarios, which is a growing challenge for personal AI agents. The distinction between trained fusion resolvers and prompt-only LLMs is clearly drawn, and the per-reasoning-type analysis highlights model-specific capabilities. The release of the full data-generating process and artifacts is a notable strength that enables reproducibility and extension by the community. The synthetic but deterministic design allows for precise error attribution, addressing a gap in existing benchmarks. The stress-test concern regarding real-world coverage does not undermine the central claims, as the work positions the benchmark explicitly as a diagnostic tool rather than a comprehensive real-world proxy.

minor comments (3)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2: The 8 reasoning types are listed but lack a short illustrative example for each to show how the controlled distortions are applied in the templates.
  2. [Table 4] Table 4 (or equivalent results table): The selective accuracy results with abstention report coverage only for the top methods; including coverage for all evaluated approaches would strengthen the comparison.
  3. [§6] §6: The limitations section could more explicitly note that the 18 templates are designed for controlled isolation of conflict resolution rather than exhaustive coverage of all possible real-world memory conflicts.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive summary, recognition of the benchmark's diagnostic value, and recommendation for minor revision. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical benchmark paper with no derivations or self-referential steps

full rationale

This is a benchmark creation and evaluation paper that constructs a synthetic dataset with 18 templates across 8 reasoning types, 480 personas, controlled distortions, and deterministic ground truth, then reports accuracy numbers for fusion resolvers versus LLM baselines (with and without abstention). No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, uniqueness theorems, or self-citation chains appear in the derivation chain. The data-generating process is explicitly released for reuse, rendering all performance claims externally falsifiable on the provided instances rather than internally forced by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Ledger is minimal because only the abstract was available for review; no free parameters or invented entities are described.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Ground truth is deterministic given the sources and distortions
    Mentioned in the abstract as having deterministic ground truth.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5766 in / 1395 out tokens · 36518 ms · 2026-06-29T07:49:06.148524+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · 8 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Apple intelligence, 2024

    Apple. Apple intelligence, 2024. URLhttps://developer.apple.com/apple-intelligence/

    2024

  2. [2]

    Brenner and John DeLamater

    Philip S. Brenner and John DeLamater. Social desirability bias in self-reports of physical activity: Is an exercise identity the culprit?Social Indicators Research, 117(2):489–504, 2014.https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11205-013-0359-y

    2014

  3. [3]

    planning fallacy

    Roger Buehler, Dale Griffin, and Michael Ross. Exploring the “planning fallacy”: Why people underesti- mate their task completion times.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(3):366–381, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366

    work page doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.366 1994

  4. [4]

    Doubao phone assistant, 2025

    ByteDance. Doubao phone assistant, 2025. URLhttps://o.doubao.com/. Product page. Accessed: 2026-05-04. 8

    2025

  5. [5]

    Zhang, and Eunsol Choi

    Hung-Ting Chen, Michael J.Q. Zhang, and Eunsol Choi. Rich knowledge sources bring complex knowledge conflicts: Recalibrating models to reflect conflicting evidence. InProceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2292–2307, 2022.https://doi.org/10. 18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.146. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/20...

    2022

  6. [6]

    ECON: On the detection and resolution of evidence conflicts

    Jiayang Cheng, Chunkit Chan, Qianqian Zhuang, Lin Qiu, Tianhang Zhang, Tengxiao Liu, Yangqiu Song, Yue Zhang, Pengfei Liu, and Zheng Zhang. ECON: On the detection and resolution of evidence conflicts. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7816– 7844, 2024. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-mai...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.447 2024

  7. [7]

    LifeBench: A benchmark for long-horizon multi-source memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.03781, 2026

    Zihao Cheng, Weixin Wang, Yu Zhao, Ziyang Ren, Jiaxuan Chen, Ruiyang Xu, Shuai Huang, Yang Chen, Guowei Li, Mengshi Wang, Yi Xie, Ren Zhu, Zeren Jiang, Keda Lu, Yihong Li, Xiaoliang Wang, Liwei Liu, and Cam-Tu Nguyen. LifeBench: A benchmark for long-horizon multi-source memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.03781, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03781

    work page arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Matthews, and Maciej S

    Leena Choi, Zhouwen Liu, Charles E. Matthews, and Maciej S. Buchowski. Validation of accelerometer wear and nonwear time classification algorithm.Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 43(2): 357–364, 2011.https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ed61a3

    work page doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e3181ed61a3 2011

  9. [9]

    Cole, Michael J.Q

    Jeremy R. Cole, Michael J.Q. Zhang, Daniel Gillick, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Bhuwan Dhingra, and Jacob Eisenstein. Selectively answering ambiguous questions. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 530–543, 2023.https://doi.org/10.18653/ v1/2023.emnlp-main.35. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2023.emnlp...

    2023

  10. [10]

    DeepSeek-AI, Aixin Liu, Aoxue Mei, Bangcai Lin, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bingzheng Xu, Bochao Wu, Bowei Zhang, Chaofan Lin, Chen Dong, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenhao Xu, Chong Ruan, Damai Dai, Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Deli Chen, Erhang Li, Fangqi Zhou, Fangyun Lin, Fucong Dai, Guangbo Hao, Guanting Chen, Guowei Li, H. Zhang, Hanwei Xu, Ha...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Large Language Models: A Survey

    Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Selective classification for deep neural networks

    Yonatan Geifman and Ran El-Yaniv. Selective classification for deep neural networks. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, pages 4878–4887. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2017/hash/ 4a8423d5e91fda00bb7e46540e2b0cf1-Abstract.html

    2017

  13. [13]

    Evaluating memory in LLM agents via incremental multi-turn interactions

    Yuanzhe Hu, Yu Wang, and Julian McAuley. Evaluating memory in LLM agents via incremental multi-turn interactions. InThe Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=DT7JyQC3MR

    2026

  14. [14]

    Retrieval-augmentedgenerationwithestimationofsourcereliability

    Jeongyeon Hwang, Junyoung Park, Hyejin Park, Dongwoo Kim, Sangdon Park, and Jungseul Ok. Retrieval-augmentedgenerationwithestimationofsourcereliability. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages34279–34303, Suzhou, China, November2025. Association for Computational Linguistics.https://doi.org/10.18653/...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1738 2025

  15. [15]

    Lawrence Zitnick, and Ross Girshick

    Justin Johnson, Bharath Hariharan, Laurens van der Maaten, Li Fei-Fei, C. Lawrence Zitnick, and Ross Girshick. CLEVR: A diagnostic dataset for compositional language and elementary visual reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2901–2910,

  16. [16]

    URL https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_ cvpr_2017/html/Johnson_CLEVR_A_Diagnostic_CVPR_2017_paper.html

    https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.215. URL https://openaccess.thecvf.com/content_ cvpr_2017/html/Johnson_CLEVR_A_Diagnostic_CVPR_2017_paper.html

    work page doi:10.1109/cvpr.2017.215 2017

  17. [17]

    Selective question answering under domain shift

    Amita Kamath, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. Selective question answering under domain shift. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5684– 5696, 2020. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.503. URL https://aclanthology.org/ 2020.acl-main.503/

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.503 2020

  18. [18]

    Collaborative filtering with temporal dynamics

    Yehuda Koren. Collaborative filtering with temporal dynamics. InProceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 447–456, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1145/1557019.1557072

    work page doi:10.1145/1557019.1557072 2009

  19. [19]

    InfiBench: Evaluating the question-answering ca- pabilities of code large language models

    Linyi Li, Shijie Geng, Zhenwen Li, Yibo He, Hao Yu, Ziyue Hua, Guanghan Ning, Si- wei Wang, Tao Xie, and Hongxia Yang. InfiBench: Evaluating the question-answering ca- pabilities of code large language models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, volume 37, pages 128668–128698. Curran Associates, Inc., 2024. https://doi.org/ 10.52202/079...

    work page doi:10.52202/079017-4087 2024

  20. [20]

    Open domain question answering with conflicting contexts

    Siyi Liu, Qiang Ning, Kishaloy Halder, Zheng Qi, Wei Xiao, Phu Mon Htut, Yi Zhang, Neha Anna John, Bonan Min, Yassine Benajiba, and Dan Roth. Open domain question answering with conflicting contexts. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL, pages 1838–1854, 2025. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025.findings-naacl.99. URL https://ac...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-naacl.99 2025

  21. [21]

    AgentBoard: An analytical evaluation board of multi-turn LLM agents

    Chang Ma, Junlei Zhang, Zhihao Zhu, Cheng Yang, Yujiu Yang, Yaohui Jin, Zhen- zhong Lan, Lingpeng Kong, and Junxian He. AgentBoard: An analytical evaluation board of multi-turn LLM agents. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, volume 37, pages 74325–74362. Curran Associates, Inc., 2024. https://doi.org/10. 52202/079017-2365. URL https://p...

    2024

  22. [22]

    Tchrakian, Javier Carnerero-Cano, Yufang Hou, Elizabeth M

    Radu Marinescu, Debarun Bhattacharjya, Junkyu Lee, Tigran T. Tchrakian, Javier Carnerero-Cano, Yufang Hou, Elizabeth M. Daly, and Alessandra Pascale. FactReasoner: A probabilistic approach to long-form factuality assessment for large language models. InFindings of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, pages 14547–14577, Suzhou, Chin...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.findings-emnlp.785 2025

  23. [23]

    Consensus or conflict? Fine-grained evaluation of conflicting answers in question-answering

    Eviatar Nachshoni, Arie Cattan, Shmuel Amar, Ori Shapira, and Ido Dagan. Consensus or conflict? Fine-grained evaluation of conflicting answers in question-answering. InProceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Uncertainty-Aware NLP (UncertaiNLP 2025), pages 138–159, Suzhou, China, 2025. Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2025....

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.uncertainlp-main.13 2025

  24. [24]

    Hermes: An open-source personal assistant agent, 2026

    Nous Research. Hermes: An open-source personal assistant agent, 2026. URLhttps://github.com/ NousResearch/hermes-agent

    2026

  25. [25]

    Introducing GPT-5.4, 2026

    OpenAI. Introducing GPT-5.4, 2026. URL https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-4/. March 5, 2026

    2026

  26. [26]

    OpenClaw: Open-source personal AI agent, 2025

    OpenClaw Project. OpenClaw: Open-source personal AI agent, 2025. URLhttps://openclaw.ai/

    2025

  27. [27]

    MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems

    Charles Packer, Sarah Wooders, Kevin Lin, Vivian Fang, Shishir G. Patil, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. MemGPT: Towards LLMs as operating systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08560, 2023. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.08560. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08560

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.08560 2023

  28. [28]

    Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior,

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph C. O’Brien, Carrie J. Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 2:1–2:22, 2023.https: //doi.org/10.1145/3586183.3606763. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1145/3586...

    work page doi:10.1145/3586183.3606763 2023

  29. [29]

    Paulhus and Simine Vazire

    Delroy L. Paulhus and Simine Vazire. The self-report method. In Richard W. Robins, R. Chris Fraley, and Robert F. Krueger, editors,Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology, pages 224–239. Guilford Press, 2007

    2007

  30. [30]

    Blaschko

    Teodora Popordanoska, Jiameng Li, and Matthew B. Blaschko. CLASH: A benchmark for cross-modal contradiction detection.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.19199, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2511. 19199

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    AGENTIF: Benchmarking instruction following of large language models in agentic scenarios.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16944, 2025

    Yunjia Qi, Hao Peng, Xiaozhi Wang, Amy Xin, Youfeng Liu, Bin Xu, Lei Hou, and Juanzi Li. AGENTIF: Benchmarking instruction following of large language models in agentic scenarios.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16944, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2505.16944

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507

    Qwen. Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507. Hugging Face model card, 2025. URLhttps://huggingface. co/Qwen/Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507. Model ID: Qwen/Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507. Ac- cessed: 2026-05-06

    2025

  33. [33]

    V-DPO: Mitigating hallucination in large vision language models via vision-guided direct preference optimization

    Alireza Salemi, Sheshera Mysore, Michael Bendersky, and Hamed Zamani. LaMP: When large language models meet personalization. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 7370–7392, 2024.https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/ 2024.acl-long.399. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-long.399/

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/ 2024

  34. [34]

    Desiderata for the context use of question answering systems

    Sagi Shaier, Lawrence Hunter, and Katharina von der Wense. Desiderata for the context use of question answering systems. InProceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 777–792, 2024.https://doi.org/10. 18653/v1/2024.eacl-long.47. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2024....

    2024

  35. [35]

    Sagi Shaier, Ari Kobren, and Philip V. Ogren. Adaptive question answering: Enhancing language model proficiency for addressing knowledge conflicts with source citations. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 17226–17239, Miami, Florida, USA, 2024. 11 Association for Computational Linguistics. https...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.956 2024

  36. [36]

    TaskBench: Benchmarking large lan- guage models for task automation

    Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Wenqi Zhang, Kan Ren, Siyu Yuan, Weim- ing Lu, Dongsheng Li, and Yueting Zhuang. TaskBench: Benchmarking large lan- guage models for task automation. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, volume 37, pages 4540–4574. Curran Associates, Inc., 2024. https://doi.org/10. 52202/079017-0148. URL https://proce...

    2024

  37. [37]

    Reflex- ion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflex- ion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, volume 36, pages 8634–8652. Curran Associates, Inc., 2023. https://doi.org/ 10.52202/075280-0377. URL https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/202...

    work page doi:10.52202/075280-0377 2023

  38. [38]

    Hamilton

    Koustuv Sinha, Shagun Sodhani, Jin Dong, Joelle Pineau, and William L. Hamilton. CLUTRR: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text. InProceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 4506–4515, 2019.https://d...

    2019

  39. [39]

    Le, Ed H

    Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Scales, Nathanael Schärli, Sebastian Gehrmann, Yi Tay, Hyung Won Chung, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Quoc V. Le, Ed H. Chi, Denny Zhou, and Jason Wei. Challenging BIG-bench tasks and whether chain-of-thought can solve them. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 13003–13051, 2023.https://doi.org/10.18653/...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl 2023

  40. [40]

    URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2023.findings-acl.824/

    2023

  41. [41]

    GBrain: Garry’s opinionated OpenClaw/Hermes agent brain, 2026

    Garry Tan. GBrain: Garry’s opinionated OpenClaw/Hermes agent brain, 2026. URLhttps://github. com/garrytan/gbrain. GitHub repository. Accessed: 2026-05-04

    2026

  42. [42]

    Gemini 3.1 Pro: A smarter model for your most complex tasks,

    The Gemini Team. Gemini 3.1 Pro: A smarter model for your most complex tasks,

  43. [43]

    February 19, 2026

    URL https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/gemini-models/ gemini-3-1-pro/. February 19, 2026

    2026

  44. [44]

    Baoliang Tian, Yuxuan Si, Jilong Wang, Lingyao Li, Zhongyuan Bao, Zineng Zhou, Tao Wang, Sixu Li, Ziyao Xu, Mingze Wang, Zhouzhuo Zhang, Zhihao Wang, Yi Ke Yun, Ke Tian, Ning Yang, and Minghui Qiu. CrossCheck-Bench: Diagnosing compositional failures in multimodal conflict resolution.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 40(31):258...

    2026

  45. [45]

    Bingbing Wen, Jihan Yao, Shangbin Feng, Chenjun Xu, Yulia Tsvetkov, Bill Howe, and Lucy Lu Wang. Know your limits: A survey of abstention in large language models.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 13:529–556, 2025.https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00754. URL https://aclanthology.org/2025.tacl-1.26/

    work page doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00754 2025

  46. [46]

    Towards AI-Complete Question Answering: A Set of Prerequisite Toy Tasks

    Jason Weston, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, Alexander M. Rush, Bart van Merriënboer, Armand Joulin, and Tomas Mikolov. Towards AI-complete question answering: A set of prerequisite toy tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.05698, 2015. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05698

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  47. [47]

    LongMemEval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory

    Di Wu, Hongwei Wang, Wenhao Yu, Yuwei Zhang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Dong Yu. LongMemEval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. URLhttps://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper_files/ paper/2025/hash/d813d324dbf0598bbdc9c8e79740ed01-Abstract-Conference.html

    2025

  48. [48]

    Adaptive chameleon or stubborn sloth: Revealing the behavior of large language models in knowledge conflicts

    Jian Xie, Kai Zhang, Jiangjie Chen, Renze Lou, and Yu Su. Adaptive chameleon or stubborn sloth: Revealing the behavior of large language models in knowledge conflicts. InProceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. URLhttps://proceedings.iclr.cc/paper_files/ paper/2024/hash/99261adc8a6356b38bcf999bba9a26dc-Abstract-Confer...

    2024

  49. [49]

    Knowledge conflicts for LLMs: A survey

    Rongwu Xu, Zehan Qi, Zhijiang Guo, Cunxiang Wang, Hongru Wang, Yue Zhang, and Wei Xu. Knowledge conflicts for LLMs: A survey. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8541–8565, Miami, Florida, USA, November 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics.https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.48...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.486 2024

  50. [50]

    Qwen3 Technical Report

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, Chujie Zheng, Dayiheng Liu, Fan Zhou, Fei Huang, Feng Hu, Hao Ge, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jing Zhou, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    A Survey on the Memory Mechanism of Large Language Model based Agents

    Zeyu Zhang, Xiaohe Bo, Chen Ma, Rui Li, Xu Chen, Quanyu Dai, Jieming Zhu, Zhenhua Dong, and Ji-Rong Wen. A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model based agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13501, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13501

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    Exploring Knowledge Conflicts for Faithful LLM Reasoning: Benchmark and Method

    Tianzhe Zhao, Jiaoyan Chen, Shuxiu Zhang, Haiping Zhu, Qika Lin, and Jun Liu. Exploring knowl- edge conflicts for faithful LLM reasoning: Benchmark and method.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.11209,

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    Exploring Knowledge Conflicts for Faithful LLM Reasoning: Benchmark and Method

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.11209. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.11209. Accepted at SIGIR 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.11209 2026

  54. [54]

    ArgRAG: Explainable retrieval augmented generation using quantitative bipolar argumentation

    Yuqicheng Zhu, Nico Potyka, Daniel Hernández, Yuan He, Zifeng Ding, Bo Xiong, Dongzhuoran Zhou, Evgeny Kharlamov, and Steffen Staab. ArgRAG: Explainable retrieval augmented generation using quantitative bipolar argumentation. InProceedings of the 19th International Conference on Neurosymbolic Learning and Reasoning, volume 284 ofProceedings of Machine Lea...

  55. [55]

    avoid providing conflicting information that would invalidate the question

    URLhttps://proceedings.mlr.press/v284/zhu25a.html. 13 Appendix Contents A Related Work 15 A.1 Comparison Table with Existing Conflict-Related Benchmarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.2 Long-Term Memory Benchmarks and Agent Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 A.3 Knowledge Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....

  56. [56]

    These systems study how agents store, retrieve, and reuse memory

    uses memory for verbal self-improvement. These systems study how agents store, retrieve, and reuse memory. Our evaluation target is the separate problem of resolving conflicts across systematically biased personal-memory streams. A.3 Knowledge Conflicts Xu et al. [46] survey knowledge conflicts in LLMs, categorizing them as context-memory, inter-context, ...

  57. [57]

    Cole et al.[9] study selective answering under question ambiguity using sampling-based confidence

    apply it to QA. Cole et al.[9] study selective answering under question ambiguity using sampling-based confidence. Wen et al.[42] survey ˜100 abstention methods across the LLM lifecycle. Our testbed extends selective prediction to multi-source settings where evidence insufficiency is an explicit driver of abstention, alongside model uncertainty. A.7 Synth...

  58. [58]

    the prerequisite condition does not exist for this persona

    evaluates code-LLM question answering, and AgentIF [30] benchmarks instruction following in agentic scenarios (tool use, system prompts, multi-step plans). These benchmarks evaluate planning, tool use, and instruction following; our benchmark focuses on multi-source conflict resolution and selective abstention over personal memory. B Benchmark Details and...

    2026

  59. [59]

    The LLM reads raw NL memory (LLM-Direct)

    NL. The LLM reads raw NL memory (LLM-Direct)

  60. [60]

    the answer 29 is v

    Schema-Aware. The LLM receives NL memory augmented with source-bias descriptions and reliability guidance. 3.ˆµinput. A method reads structured atomsˆµextracted from NL memory. 4.µ∗input. A method reads structured atomsµ∗directly from the structuredL3 source streams. The 2×2 crossing of resolver (DSNBF vs. GPT-5.4) and input quality (ˆµvs. µ∗) enables the...

  61. [61]

    Read the question text carefully

  62. [62]

    Consider evidence from ALL relevant source sections

  63. [63]

    When sources disagree, use your judgment to determine the most likely true answer

  64. [64]

    Select exactly one answer label from the answer space (forced answer — you MUST pick one)

  65. [65]

    20_or_more

    Also decide: if you had the option to abstain (because evidence is too conflicting or insufficient for a confident judgment), would you? Record this as would_skip (true/false). # Answering Principles - Synthesize across sources. Different sources may tell different stories. - No single source is presumed correct. Every source has potential biases. - Force...