Papers for

dialog system engineers

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Geometry of agent memory weakly predicts answer correctness before generation

The Geometry of Agent Memory: Forecasting Retrieval-Bound Memory Failures, and Characterizing Its Limits

Abstract: We study whether geometric relationships between conversation turns, memory texts, and queries can predict answer correctness before generation. We evaluate four memory implementations with dense or hybrid retrieval and one observation-summary comparator. We embed these texts in a shared space. A logistic classifier uses 25 features describing query proximity, memory-conversation correspondence, and conversation structure. On LongMemEval-small, pooled AUROC is 0.640 over 2,367 question-system pairs, below a question-difficulty baseline of 0.655. Performance varies by question type: geometry reaches 0.841 on single-session-assistant questions, but system identity alone reaches 0.826. After controlling for difficulty and identity, geometry adds no statistically established pooled improvement (delta = +0.002, 95% CI [-0.010, 0.014]). A fixed-store context-selection experiment finds higher accuracy with proximity-ranked memories than with random subsets, consistent with ordinary retrieval relevance. On LoCoMo, nearest-turn similarity has modest predictive value for single-hop questions and near-chance estimates for several other categories. Training uses correctness labels; prediction uses pre-answer features and no additional LLM generation call. The results characterize associations between memory representations and correctness, rather than establish a reliable deployment diagnostic. In particular, embedding proximity does not verify fact coverage or distinguish memory-construction, retrieval, and generation errors.

Mon 19 OctComputation and LanguageInformation Retrieval
The gist
This paper looks at whether the positions of conversation parts, memories, and questions in a shared space can help predict if an AI will answer correctly before actually trying. The authors tested different memory types and found only weak predictions, with their geometric method often no better than just knowing the question difficulty or AI system. They also show that similarity between memories and questions matters a bit but isn’t enough to reliably find errors. Their work helps us understand the limits of using geometry in AI memory but does not provide a dependable way to tell if an AI will answer right.
Open → 2610.26433v1

Reinforcement learning reward systems evolve alongside policies for better results

EvoRS: On-Policy Self-Evolution of Reward Systems for Open-Ended Reinforcement Learning

Abstract: Open-ended reinforcement learning often relies on rubric-based rewards for tasks without directly verifiable answers. Yet the policy and reward system form a dynamic feedback loop: as the policy optimizes the current reward, an initially useful reward system may become unreliable due to reward hacking or reduced response discriminability. The reward system should therefore evolve rather than remain fixed during training. Existing dynamic-rubric methods adapt evaluation criteria, but reward failures can also arise from scoring mechanisms or signal composition. We introduce EvoRS, a self-evolving RL framework that evolves the reward system from on-policy experience, representing it as an executable Reward-DAG. Specifically, an agentic designer updates this system from on-policy rollouts and reward traces to maintain train-time reliability. Across writing and roleplay, EvoRS achieves the best quality under all three judges, outperforming the policy by \(2.107\) and \(4.767\) points, respectively, while reducing reward hacking and coverage failures and preserving reward informativeness. Ablations confirm that a comprehensive fixed reward system cannot remain reliable in open-ended tasks and must evolve throughout training.

Fri 11 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Sometimes in training AI agents, the rules for rewards stop working well because the agents find ways to trick the system or the rewards become unclear. This paper shows a way to let the reward system change and improve as the agent learns, making the training more reliable. The authors created EvoRS, which updates rewards based on the agent’s own experiences and helps reduce problems like cheating the reward or missing important feedback. Their tests show that evolving rewards give better performance than fixed reward systems in open-ended tasks like writing and roleplaying.
Open → 2609.12459v1