Rare, Relevant, and Still Wrong: How Memory Fails LLM Group Decisions 待解读
新用户看这篇论文该怎么开始
- 先点「赞助解读」，AI 会把论文转成可直接执行的行动清单。
- 看完“可执行改进行动”后，可快速决定是否值得立项。
- 用上面的卡片内容直接发给团队，减少重复阅读。
摘要
When an LLM group's discussion is compressed into a short memory for a final decision maker, what should the memory keep? Two natural heuristics keep the rarest claims or the claims relevant to the decision criteria. On hidden-profile tasks both look attractive, because how widely a fact is held is confounded with whether it helps. We introduce CrossProfile, a diagnostic benchmark of 60 templates with automatically verified answer keys, in which the ownership of supporting, decoy, and irrelevant facts is crossed while their text is held fixed (480 tasks). Across Qwen2.5-7B, Llama-3.1-8B, and two DeepSeek models, both heuristics fail in predictable places. Selecting by relevance readmits decoys, because decoys are on topic: even a perfect relevance filter loses 23 to 31 points to rarest-first selection in the classic hidden-profile configuration. Rarest-first selection is no better than random selection on average and wins only where the rare facts happen to be the useful ones. In both cases accuracy follows the balance of evidence the memory keeps, not the policy that kept it. The decision model adds a third failure, a form of social proof: it gives extra weight to facts attributed to many agents. Removing the attribution tags, or reassigning them at random with line order fixed, raises accuracy in the classic configuration by 13 to 24 points. In natural discussions the evidence is lost before any memory acts: the complete transcript yields lower accuracy than no notes at all.
分析报告
暂无报告。点击“分析”开始生成。
个性化解读 与社区共享解读不同
用自己的话告诉 AI 你想要什么样的解读（比如"用大白话讲给非专业人士听"、"重点分析对我们团队 RAG 系统的可迁移性"），生成一份只属于你自己的版本；生成后也可以选择设为"愿意共享"，被更多人看到、点赞。