Nishant Bhargava

Nishant Bhargava, Rodrigo Sobral Barrento

Long-term LLM agents must compress streams of past interactions into persistent memory before future queries are known. Existing evaluations usually measure final question-answering accuracy, which entangles memory writing with retrieval, prompting, and reader reasoning. We introduce MEMAUDIT, an exact packageoracle evaluation protocol for budgeted long-term memory writing. A MEMAUDIT package fixes an experience stream, candidate memory representations, storage costs, semantic evidence units, future-query requirements, and a budget, turning write-time memory selection into a finite auditable optimization problem with a certified denominator. We instantiate this protocol with a concave-over-modular semantic coverage objective under storage and one-representation-per-experience constraints, and compute exact package optima using branch-and-bound with MILP certification. Across controlled exact packages, validity-heavy stress tests, human-audited natural support slices, and exported Mem0, A-Mem, and Letta stores, MEMAUDIT separates representation quality, validity-state preservation, and budget-aware selection effects that end-to-end QA cannot localize. The resulting artifact provides reusable package generators, certified solvers, natural package exports, external-system scorers, and cached reproducibility metadata for evaluating what memory writers actually preserve under fixed storage budgets.

Lang Xiong, Nishant Bhargava, Jianhang Hong et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often exhibit significant behavioral shifts when they perceive a change from a real-world deployment context to a controlled evaluation setting, a phenomenon known as "evaluation awareness." This discrepancy poses a critical challenge for AI alignment, as benchmark performance may not accurately reflect a model's true safety and honesty. In this work, we systematically quantify these behavioral changes by manipulating the perceived context of prompts. We introduce a methodology that uses a linear probe to score prompts on a continuous scale from "test-like" to "deploy-like" and leverage an LLM rewriting strategy to shift these prompts towards a more natural, deployment-style context while preserving the original task. Using this method, we achieved a 30% increase in the average probe score across a strategic role-playing dataset after rewriting. Evaluating a suite of state-of-the-art models on these original and rewritten prompts, we find that rewritten "deploy-like" prompts induce a significant and consistent shift in behavior. Across all models, we observed an average increase in honest responses of 5.26% and a corresponding average decrease in deceptive responses of 12.40%. Furthermore, refusal rates increased by an average of 6.38%, indicating heightened safety compliance. Our findings demonstrate that evaluation awareness is a quantifiable and manipulable factor that directly influences LLM behavior, revealing that models are more prone to unsafe or deceptive outputs in perceived test environments. This underscores the urgent need for more realistic evaluation frameworks to accurately gauge true model alignment before deployment.