Xinchi Li

Ding Chen, Simin Niu, Kehang Li et al.

Memory systems are key components that enable AI systems such as LLMs and AI agents to achieve long-term learning and sustained interaction. However, during memory storage and retrieval, these systems frequently exhibit memory hallucinations, including fabrication, errors, conflicts, and omissions. Existing evaluations of memory hallucinations are primarily end-to-end question answering, which makes it difficult to localize the operational stage within the memory system where hallucinations arise. To address this, we introduce the Hallucination in Memory Benchmark (HaluMem), the first operation level hallucination evaluation benchmark tailored to memory systems. HaluMem defines three evaluation tasks (memory extraction, memory updating, and memory question answering) to comprehensively reveal hallucination behaviors across different operational stages of interaction. To support evaluation, we construct user-centric, multi-turn human-AI interaction datasets, HaluMem-Medium and HaluMem-Long. Both include about 15k memory points and 3.5k multi-type questions. The average dialogue length per user reaches 1.5k and 2.6k turns, with context lengths exceeding 1M tokens, enabling evaluation of hallucinations across different context scales and task complexities. Empirical studies based on HaluMem show that existing memory systems tend to generate and accumulate hallucinations during the extraction and updating stages, which subsequently propagate errors to the question answering stage. Future research should focus on developing interpretable and constrained memory operation mechanisms that systematically suppress hallucinations and improve memory reliability.

Ding Chen, Qingchen Yu, Pengyuan Wang et al.

With the release of the o1 model by OpenAI, reasoning models adopting slow thinking strategies have gradually emerged. As the responses generated by such models often include complex reasoning, intermediate steps, and self-reflection, existing evaluation methods are often inadequate. They struggle to determine whether the LLM output is truly equivalent to the reference answer, and also have difficulty identifying and extracting the final answer from long, complex responses. To address this issue, we propose xVerify, an efficient answer verifier for reasoning model evaluations. xVerify demonstrates strong capability in equivalence judgment, enabling it to effectively determine whether the answers produced by reasoning models are equivalent to reference answers across various types of objective questions. To train and evaluate xVerify, we construct the VAR dataset by collecting question-answer pairs generated by multiple LLMs across various datasets, leveraging multiple reasoning models and challenging evaluation sets designed specifically for reasoning model assessment. A multi-round annotation process is employed to ensure label accuracy. Based on the VAR dataset, we train multiple xVerify models of different scales. In evaluation experiments conducted on both the test set and generalization set, all xVerify models achieve overall F1 scores and accuracy exceeding 95\%. Notably, the smallest variant, xVerify-0.5B-I, outperforms all evaluation methods except GPT-4o, while xVerify-3B-Ib surpasses GPT-4o in overall performance. These results validate the effectiveness and generalizability of xVerify.