Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper argues that current personal agent memory systems, focused on user knowledge and preferences, fail to distinguish between user proposals and established agreements, leading to erroneous action execution. The authors introduce "Grounding Awareness," the capability to differentiate between accepted, unacknowledged, revised, and scoped arrangements, and develop a benchmark to evaluate this. Their findings reveal that even strong memory performance does not guarantee Grounding Awareness, and surprisingly, more user information can exacerbate the issue, while persistent memory can lead to misinterpreting proposals as instructions.
Personal agents mistakenly execute unacknowledged proposals as instructions, even with perfect user memory, due to a fundamental lack of "grounding awareness."
Personal-agent memory has largely focused on learning what users know, prefer, and want. However, knowing the user does not necessarily mean knowing what the user and the agent have established together. An assistant's proposal should not become an authorized instruction merely because it is remembered. We introduce Grounding Awareness, the ability to distinguish accepted, unacknowledged, revised, and scoped arrangements when selecting actions. We develop a controlled benchmark to test whether agents can tell the difference between proposals users have accepted and those they have not, and whether they apply accepted arrangements only where appropriate. Across multiple agents and memory systems, we find that strong memory performance does not ensure Grounding Awareness. More surprisingly, providing more complete user information can increase execution of unacknowledged proposals, while persistent memory can cause agents to treat these proposals as if they were user instructions. We trace these failures through memory writing, retrieval, and action selection. Finally, we introduce Grounding Layer, a lightweight, training-free extension that explicitly tracks grounding status and checks consequential actions, substantially improving agent behavior without modifying models or memory systems.