Imel, Anouar, Charradi, Imad, Sghir, Abderrahman, Khammar, Khalil El · Oct 27, 2026
arXiv cs.AI: Rare, Relevant, and Still Wrong: How Memory Fails LLM Group Decisions
Markdown · JSON · Original source
Anouar Imel, Imad Charradi, Abderrahman Sghir and Khalil El Khammar examine what a short memory should preserve when a group of language models discusses a decision and another model makes the final choice. They introduce CrossProfile, a that varies which agents hold supporting, misleading and irrelevant facts while keeping the facts’ wording fixed. On the benchmark, choosing rare claims or choosing claims relevant to the decision both fail in predictable ways: relevant misleading claims can survive filtering, while rare claims help only when they happen to support the answer. The authors say accuracy tracks the balance of evidence retained, rather than the selection rule alone. They also report a separate “social proof” effect: the decision model gives extra weight to facts attributed to many agents. Removing or randomly changing attribution tags raises accuracy in the classic hidden-profile configuration. In natural discussions, the authors report, evidence can be lost before memory selection begins: the full transcript performs worse than no notes. The results suggest that retaining a transcript or applying a simple memory heuristic does not necessarily preserve the evidence needed for a group decision; the benchmark and reported natural-discussion result do not establish how these effects vary across other settings.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 27, 2026 (2026-10-27).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-14T04:02:04.423Z. First observed: 2026-10-28T05:08:35.812Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-30T02:32:06.246Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The abstract describes results across Qwen2.5-7B, Llama-3.1-8B and two DeepSeek models; it does not establish how the findings generalize beyond the tested models and tasks. The abstract reports a result for natural discussions but does not describe those discussions or provide details about the conditions of that comparison.
Open question
How well do the reported effects hold beyond the CrossProfile tasks and natural discussions studied by the authors?
Source-stated
The authors introduce CrossProfile, a benchmark that varies who holds supporting, decoy and irrelevant facts while holding their wording fixed.
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)
Source-stated
On the tested models and benchmark, relevance-based selection can retain decoys, while rarest-first selection is no better than random on average.
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
Source-stated
The authors report that accuracy follows the balance of evidence retained, not the memory-selection policy by itself.
In both cases accuracy follows the balance of evidence the memory keeps, not the policy that kept it.
Source-stated
The authors report that decision models give extra weight to facts attributed to many agents, and that changing or removing attribution tags raises accuracy in the classic configuration.
Removing the attribution tags, or reassigning them at random with line order fixed, raises accuracy in the classic configuration by 13 to 24 points.
Source-stated
For natural discussions, the authors report lower accuracy from the complete transcript than from no notes.
In natural discussions the evidence is lost before any memory acts: the complete transcript yields lower accuracy than no notes at all.
Source and contributor context
Imel, Anouar, Charradi, Imad, Sghir, Abderrahman, Khammar, Khalil El · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Large language model
A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 75c4ec9a-1d6e-414a-8375-d695b1dbc1c0.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-14T04:02:04.423Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: useful_perspective.
Observation: 2bd8dfc1ac54cbb3abac0325e9b8b49a390fd966d4e9711b51f57bd4f55971b4. Source text hash: 051473dd45ee13bc0ccc94064fe2a7882f4cff25767c36993aa22ba59c85d63d.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-14T04:02:04.423Z
arXiv cs.AI: Rare, Relevant, and Still Wrong: How Memory Fails LLM Group Decisions
Anouar Imel, Imad Charradi, Abderrahman Sghir and Khalil El Khammar examine what a short memory should preserve when a group of language models discusses a decision and another model makes the final choice. They introduce CrossProfile, a that varies which agents hold supporting, misleading and irrelevant facts while keeping the facts’ wording fixed. On the benchmark, choosing rare claims or choosing claims relevant to the decision both fail in predictable ways: relevant misleading claims can survive filtering, while rare claims help only when they happen to support the answer. The authors say accuracy tracks the balance of evidence retained, rather than the selection rule alone. They also report a separate “social proof” effect: the decision model gives extra weight to facts attributed to many agents. Removing or randomly changing attribution tags raises accuracy in the classic hidden-profile configuration. In natural discussions, the authors report, evidence can be lost before memory selection begins: the full transcript performs worse than no notes. The results suggest that retaining a transcript or applying a simple memory heuristic does not necessarily preserve the evidence needed for a group decision; the benchmark and reported natural-discussion result do not establish how these effects vary across other settings.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Oct 27, 2026 (2026-10-27).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-14T04:02:04.423Z. First observed: 2026-10-28T05:08:35.812Z. Retrieved: 2026-10-30T02:32:06.246Z.
Limits
The abstract describes results across Qwen2.5-7B, Llama-3.1-8B and two DeepSeek models; it does not establish how the findings generalize beyond the tested models and tasks. The abstract reports a result for natural discussions but does not describe those discussions or provide details about the conditions of that comparison.
Open question
How well do the reported effects hold beyond the CrossProfile tasks and natural discussions studied by the authors?
Source-stated
The authors introduce CrossProfile, a benchmark that varies who holds supporting, decoy and irrelevant facts while holding their wording fixed.
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)
Source-stated
On the tested models and benchmark, relevance-based selection can retain decoys, while rarest-first selection is no better than random on average.
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
Source-stated
The authors report that accuracy follows the balance of evidence retained, not the memory-selection policy by itself.
In both cases accuracy follows the balance of evidence the memory keeps, not the policy that kept it.
Source-stated
The authors report that decision models give extra weight to facts attributed to many agents, and that changing or removing attribution tags raises accuracy in the classic configuration.
Removing the attribution tags, or reassigning them at random with line order fixed, raises accuracy in the classic configuration by 13 to 24 points.
Source-stated
For natural discussions, the authors report lower accuracy from the complete transcript than from no notes.
In natural discussions the evidence is lost before any memory acts: the complete transcript yields lower accuracy than no notes at all.
Source and contributor context
Imel, Anouar, Charradi, Imad, Sghir, Abderrahman, Khammar, Khalil El · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Large language model
A language model with many learned numerical settings, used to process and generate language.
Benchmark
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: 75c4ec9a-1d6e-414a-8375-d695b1dbc1c0.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-14T04:02:04.423Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: useful_perspective.
Observation: 2bd8dfc1ac54cbb3abac0325e9b8b49a390fd966d4e9711b51f57bd4f55971b4. Source text hash: 051473dd45ee13bc0ccc94064fe2a7882f4cff25767c36993aa22ba59c85d63d.
uncertain · 2026-11-14T04:02:04.423Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: 75c4ec9a-1d6e-414a-8375-d695b1dbc1c0
attribution — pass: The reading names the four listed authors and attributes the findings to them as reported results, not as established fact. The arXiv cs.AI source is identified correctly.
Authors:Anouar Imel, Imad Charradi, Abderrahman Sghir, Khalil El Khammar
summary — uncertain: The term 'classic hidden-profile configuration' is used but never explained, so a non-specialist cannot tell what kind of task the accuracy gain applies to. The reading also drops the paper's core reason both heuristics look attractive: how widely a fact is held is confounded with whether it helps. It omits the abstract's sharpest result, that even a perfect relevance filter loses 23 to 31 points to rarest-first. Smallest repair: one plain-language clause defining hidden-profile tasks (key facts spread unevenly across group members), plus the confound sentence. The title and question are otherwise faithful.
On hidden-profile tasks both look attractive, because how widely a fact is held is confounded with whether it helps.
date — pass: The originalPublished value, 2026-10-27, matches the arXiv v1 submission date. The later feed date was correctly not used.
[Submitted on 27 Oct 2026]
support — pass: Each claim is source-stated and backed by its excerpt. The closing inference about transcripts and simple heuristics is hedged and scoped to the benchmark. Two small softenings, 'can be lost' and 'rather than the selection rule alone', do not contradict the source. The question follows from the evidence without leading.
In both cases accuracy follows the balance of evidence the memory keeps, not the policy that kept it.
media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct link to the original arXiv abstract page, which is the actual source.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referenceA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.
Definition reference