Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.22091

Memory That Looks Forward: A Zero-Inference Prospective Term for Personal Memory Retrieval

Jonathan Groff
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Retrieval over a personal memory store is retrospective: it surfaces what resembles the query, and it is blind to what the user has committed to do. We describe a prospective term for memory retrieval that costs no inference at query time. Commitments are held in an explicit ledger as dated or trigger-conditioned entries; memory items linked to a firing entry receive a salience boost, blended multiplicatively into embedding-based retrieval so that relevance remains sovereign. On a synthetic prospective-memory task set modeled on TriggerBench's published structure (48 blind-authored dialogues, 175 tasks), the term raised recall@5 on the hard stratum from 0.000 to 0.955 at the default blend weight and to 1.000 under a floor variant, with zero false boosts across 53 resolved-commitment tasks. Blind authorship also produced a scope finding: only 17-29% of naturally phrased commitment-trigger pairs defeat embedding similarity, so the term matters on a real minority of cases and must do no harm on the rest, which it does not. We position precomputed commitment linkage as the always-on floor of a layered design whose expansion layer is query-time prospection. Results are preliminary: the evaluation set is author-constructed, and evaluation on TriggerBench proper is committed follow-up work once its data is released.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jonathan Groff. 2026-07-24. Memory That Looks Forward: A Zero-Inference Prospective Term for Personal Memory Retrieval. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.22091

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

SafetyFlow: An Agent-Flow System for Automated LLM Safety Benchmarking

The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) has intensified the requirement for reliable safety evaluation to uncover model vulnerabilities. To this end, numerous LLM safety evaluation benchmarks are proposed. However, existing benchmarks generally rely on labor-intensive manual curation, which causes excessive time and resource consumption. They also exhibit significant redundancy and limited difficulty. To alleviate these problems, we introduce SafetyFlow, the first agent-flow system designed to automate the construction of LLM safety benchmarks. SafetyFlow can automatically build a comprehensive safety benchmark in only four days without any human intervention by orchestrating seven specialized agents, significantly reducing time and resource cost. Equipped with versatile tools, the agents of SafetyFlow ensure process and cost controllability while integrating human expertise into the automatic pipeline. The final constructed dataset, SafetyFlowBench, contains 23,446 queries with low redundancy and strong discriminative power. Our contribution includes the first fully automated benchmarking pipeline and a comprehensive safety benchmark. We evaluate the safety of 49 advanced LLMs on our dataset and conduct extensive experiments to validate our efficacy and efficiency.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Geometric Uncertainty for Detecting and Correcting Hallucinations in LLMs

Large language models are known to hallucinate, generating linguistically plausible but incorrect answers to questions. Uncertainty quantification has been proposed as a strategy to detect such behaviour, but existing methods lack a unified framework to assess reliability at both the prompt and answer level. We introduce a geometric framework which quantifies language model uncertainty at both levels by explicitly modelling a prompt-conditioned semantic distribution in answer embedding space. Our approach is black-box and sampling-based; we generate multiple answers per prompt, and use archetypal analysis to estimate a geometric support for the answer distribution. At the prompt level, we approximate the distribution entropy to quantify uncertainty; for each individual answer, we then use notions of atypicality to assess its reliability relative to the batch. We employ our framework to not only detect hallucinations but correct them, by selecting the batch example deemed most reliable. Experiments show that our framework performs comparably to or better than prior methods on short form question-answering datasets, and achieves superior results on medical datasets where hallucinations carry particularly critical risks. Beyond pure performance, we suggest the theoretical grounding of our work provides support for semantic distributions as useful objects of study for language model uncertainty.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Calibrated Confidence Expression for Radiology Report Generation

Safe deployment of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) in radiology report generation requires not only accurate predictions but also clinically interpretable indicators of when outputs should be thoroughly reviewed, enabling selective radiologist verification and reducing the risk of hallucinated findings influencing clinical decisions. One intuitive approach to this is verbalized confidence, where the model explicitly states its certainty. However, current state-of-the-art language models are often overconfident, and research on calibration in multimodal settings such as radiology report generation is limited. To address this gap, we introduce ConRad (Confidence Calibration for Radiology Reports), a reinforcement learning framework for fine-tuning medical LVLMs to produce calibrated verbalized confidence estimates alongside radiology reports. We study two settings: a single report-level confidence score and a sentence-level variant assigning a confidence to each claim. Both are trained using the GRPO algorithm with reward functions based on the logarithmic scoring rule, which incentivizes truthful self-assessment by penalizing miscalibration and guarantees optimal calibration under reward maximization. Experimentally, ConRad substantially improves calibration and outperforms competing methods. In a clinical evaluation we show that ConRad's report level scores are well aligned with clinicians' judgment. By highlighting full reports or low-confidence statements for targeted review, ConRad can support safer clinical integration of AI-assistance for report generation.

cs.CL↗