Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Semantic Commit: Helping Users Update Intent Specifications for AI Memory at Scale

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2504.09283 v1 pith:YMOGC5O2 submitted 2025-04-12 cs.HC cs.AI

Semantic Commit: Helping Users Update Intent Specifications for AI Memory at Scale

classification cs.HC cs.AI
keywords intentsemanticconflictsmemoryuserusersagentanalysis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

How do we update AI memory of user intent as intent changes? We consider how an AI interface may assist the integration of new information into a repository of natural language data. Inspired by software engineering concepts like impact analysis, we develop methods and a UI for managing semantic changes with non-local effects, which we call "semantic conflict resolution." The user commits new intent to a project -- makes a "semantic commit" -- and the AI helps the user detect and resolve semantic conflicts within a store of existing information representing their intent (an "intent specification"). We develop an interface, SemanticCommit, to better understand how users resolve conflicts when updating intent specifications such as Cursor Rules and game design documents. A knowledge graph-based RAG pipeline drives conflict detection, while LLMs assist in suggesting resolutions. We evaluate our technique on an initial benchmark. Then, we report a 12 user within-subjects study of SemanticCommit for two task domains -- game design documents, and AI agent memory in the style of ChatGPT memories -- where users integrated new information into an existing list. Half of our participants adopted a workflow of impact analysis, where they would first flag conflicts without AI revisions then resolve conflicts locally, despite having access to a global revision feature. We argue that AI agent interfaces, such as software IDEs like Cursor and Windsurf, should provide affordances for impact analysis and help users validate AI retrieval independently from generation. Our work speaks to how AI agent designers should think about updating memory as a process that involves human feedback and decision-making.

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. CogInstrument: Modeling Cognitive Processes for Bidirectional Human-LLM Alignment in Planning Tasks

    cs.HC 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    CogInstrument represents human reasoning as revisable cognitive motifs in graphical form to support iterative alignment with LLMs during planning tasks, with a N=12 study indicating gains in targeted revision, agency,...