Search AI news

Rewrite, Then Veto: Rewriter-Agnostic Edit Gating for LLM-Based Post-OCR Correction

arXiv:2611.05539v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLMs can repair noisy OCR transcripts of historical documents, but they also change text that was already correct. We propose EditVeto, a veto gate placed after a full-context LLM rewrite. The rewrite is character-aligned to the OCR input, its differences are split into blocks, and a 0.6B-parameter gate keeps or reverts each block. An oracle analysis motivates the design: given the true error locations, per-span generation is worse than no correction, whereas vetoing a full rewrite's edits helps. Trained on rewrites by two Qwen3 models and evaluated, frozen, on the eight HIPE-OCRepair-2026 test sets, the gate improves all five rewriters tested, two of them unseen in training: weighted cMER falls by 0.0026-0.0044 and the preference score rises by 0.15-0.25 (paired bootstrap, p ~ 0.0002 each). On published competition outputs it lowers cMER for three of four teams but raises it for the winning run (0.0050 to 0.0065). In a second, disclosed test look, a retrained gate still improves LoRA-tuned rewriters (cMER -0.0011 to -0.0021), and an ensemble of their gated edits reaches a cMER of 0.0069 and a preference score of 0.928, mostly through fine-tuning and pooling rather than gating. Built only on public models and data, it is behind the winner (0.0050) and tied with the second-ranked run (0.0071), both from the only team using domain pre-training, and ahead of all other published runs. A third, secondary look shows the unchanged gate improving zero-shot Qwen3.8-27B (cMER 0.0114 to 0.0108) but only the preference score of its LoRA-tuned version.

What Is This Memory Useful For? Measuring Task-Conditioned Utility in Long-Term Agent Memory

arXiv:2611.03930v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A stored experience may answer one future question and offer little help with another. We measure this task-conditioned utility rather than assigning each memory a single importance score. A task-blind writer stores a memory without seeing the later task; a frozen reader then answers that task with and without the memory, using identical filler. A cost ledger records the resources used to form, store and expose the memory. On single-call factual-recall tasks built from LongMemEval-V2 web-agent memories, the same memory helps more when it contains information needed for the answer. Its mean paired reward gain on these answer-bearing task pairs exceeds that on matched-control pairs by $+0.33$ (95% interval $+0.21$ to $+0.46$). The tested task-blind summaries and structured records yield smaller gains than Raw, including at fixed total context; a budget sweep is consistent with retention of answer-bearing content contributing to the difference. The bearing--control contrast remains positive in a new session with randomized memory position and under a second reader, although individual memory--task labels change. Generic retrieval performs above chance but misses most screen-defined answer-bearing memories. The factual-recall gains do not extend to the tested software-engineering and scientific-coding benchmarks, where even raw memories have no measurable effect. We provide a public, versioned Conditional Memory Utility Dataset of paired measurements and costs. The practical takeaway is to evaluate memory compression by the task utility it preserves alongside its costs. Task-conditioned measurements make this comparison possible; their stability must also be checked.

Which Answer Did the Seventeen-Year-Old Write? A Behavioral Case Study of Author-Age Misattribution, Miscalibrated Confidence, and Non-Corrective Self-Explanation in Six Frontier Language Models

arXiv:2610.31946v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Three students answered the same exam prompt by hand: "What is happiness? Are you happy?" Their ages, recorded at collection, are 17, 28, and 45. The 17-year-old's answer is hedged and formally phrased. Asked to match each answer to an age and gender label, most frontier language models confidently assign it to an adult. This paper reports a structured case study of that failure across six models: Claude Fable 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, GPT-5.6 Sol, Grok 4.5, GPT-4o (2024), and DeepSeek V4. We ran 1,081 API sessions and scored 3,225 responses across six experimental conditions that manipulate framing, disclosure format, and audience-awareness instruction. Three of six models perform at or near chance (1/3) on the matching task while reporting 73-88%

The study proposes Delta N-grams: a forward-only, continuous-writing method for native N-gram tables in language models.

On October 24, 2026, arXiv published the paper arXiv:2610.31125v1, introducing Delta N-grams—a novel mechanism that does not modify the pre-trained N-gram table T⁰, but instead writes sparse incremental patches Δ via forward propagation, enabling efficient and reversible continual memory updates.

Why it matters：This work addresses the issue of large perturbations to a model’s base parameters in continual learning by proposing a memory-enhanced pathway that is lightweight in structure (4.1M parameters), computationally efficient (purely forward pass), and fully invertible (resetting Δ restores the original model). Its superior document-specificity and robustness against interference have been validated on models such as Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, making it a cutting-edge contribution to trustworthy AI systems research.