跳到正文
认知
返回认知精选
认知精选AI论文大约 2 小时前4
单一来源当前只有一个可用来源,尚未完成多源交叉核验

清理历史记录会适得其反,若世界仍存错误

arXiv:2611.14654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using language-model agents accumulate histories of their own mistakes, and a system that compacts, repairs or hands off such a history decides what it says about those mistakes while their effects stay in the world. Prior work cleans the history at a fixed world, where showing a corrected step and saying it is done move together. We ask whether the same correct content helps or hurts depending on how the history states it and what the world holds. We freeze an agent mid-task with its exact world state, edit the history or the world, and let a receiver model continue. On AgentCE-Bench, after the agent commits a wrong value, we hold the world fixed and add the correct value by two natural edits: a truthful note beside the preserved error or the agent's own completed action. The note raises recovery, the share of remaining targets the receiver gets right, from 51% under a matched neutral note to 66%. The completed action lowers it below the unedited history, from 50% to 44%, so the value's presence alone does not predict the effect. On AppWorld, after a database write, we vary whether its receipt reports success or failure and whether its effect is present. A success receipt lowers whole-task success from 45% to 28% while the effect is absent and raises it from 38% to 49% once present. The two effects differ by 27 points pooled over two receivers, a difference positive in six of eight receivers at 97.5% and seven at 95%. A history edit's effect thus depends on the world it describes, and a history made to look clean while the world still holds the error can leave an agent worse off than no edit at all.

Evidence

来源与证据

单一来源 · 1 个信源

当前仅有一个可用来源,尚未完成多源交叉核验。

发布时间
内容处理
AI 翻译 / 摘要,需结合原文核对
内容有误或来源失效?告诉我们

每天早上收到这 5 条

免注册,填邮箱即可;每封邮件都能一键退订。

提交即表示同意按隐私说明保存你的邮箱,只用于发送简报。

或用 RSS 订阅

AI 翻译、摘要和解读仅用于辅助判断;涉及重要决策时,请回到上方来源核实。