TriggerBench: Investigating Prospective Memory for Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2606.23459v1
• Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2026 15:07:36 GMT
• Title: TriggerBench: Investigating Prospective Memory for Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: We introduce TriggerBench, a benchmark for Prospective memory (PM)<n>PM shows a precision-recall trade-off and attentional fragility.<n>PM is notably harder than RM: on identical contexts, near-saturates up to 100K tokens, while PM decays sharply as context length scales.
• Score: 61.96701552522981
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in long interactions, existing evaluations focus predominantly on retrospective memory (RM) via explicit queries. Prospective memory (PM), the critical ability to spontaneously recall and act on latent constraints without direct prompts, remains largely unevaluated. We introduce TriggerBench, a comprehensive PM benchmark spanning five dimensions across both daily assistants and professional workflows. TriggerBench pairs scenarios with matched RM controls, contrastive positive/negative variants, and overloaded triggers, enabling fine-grained measurement of proactive recall, false-alarm rate, and attentional robustness under a single protocol. Our evaluation yields three key findings. (i) PM shows a precision-recall trade-off and attentional fragility. Though enhanced reasoning significantly improves proactive recall, models may overfit to an "always-remind" heuristic. Furthermore, PM accuracy degrades substantially under implicit constraints or triggers overloaded by concurrent user requests, indicating that robust PM remains an open challenge. (ii) PM is notably harder than RM: on identical contexts, RM near-saturates up to 100K tokens, while PM decays sharply as context length scales. (iii) PM may serve as a behavioral probe of spare reasoning capacity. Pairing PM scenarios with AIME-2025 math problems reveals that successful trajectories yield higher PM accuracy than failed ones at the same context length, showing PM tracks spare reasoning budget that token count obscures. Project page: https://github.com/KristenZHANG/TriggerBench-Official.

Related papers

• SAVOR: Self-Aware Visual Grounding via Confidence-Calibrated Reinforcement Learning for Multimodal Hallucination Mitigation [4.100479369058624]
  Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) produce fluent claims about objects, attributes, or relations that are not grounded in the image.<n>We introduce Savor, a training framework that augments the output schema with token and answer confidence.<n>We show that Savor reduces hallucination while preserving general capability on MME and MMBench, with lower Expected Error than DPO and decoding baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T03:53:32Z)
• LLMs Know When They Know, but Do Not Act on It: A Metacognitive Harness for Test-time Scaling [26.999207995495354]
  We ask whether large language models (LLMs) possess latent metacognitive ability that can be turned into effective test-time control.<n>Inspired by the Nelson--Narens theory from cognitive psychology, we propose a metacognitive harness that separates monitoring from reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-13T23:09:25Z)
• ImplicitMemBench: Measuring Unconscious Behavioral Adaptation in Large Language Models [60.14219417402433]
  Existing memory benchmarks for LLM agents evaluate explicit recall of facts, yet overlook implicit memory where experience becomes automated behavior without conscious retrieval.<n>We introduce ImplicitMemBench, the first systematic benchmark evaluating implicit memory through three constructs drawn from standard cognitive-science accounts of non-declarative memory.<n>Our 300-item suite employs a unified Learning/Priming-Interfere-Test protocol with first-attempt scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T10:26:32Z)
• Reasoning Theater: Disentangling Model Beliefs from Chain-of-Thought [11.955186033088351]
  We provide evidence of performative chain-of-thought (CoT) in reasoning models.<n>We compare activation probing, early forced answering, and a CoT monitor across two large models.<n>We contrast this with genuine reasoning in difficult multihop GPQA-Diamond questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T18:55:16Z)
• Balancing Faithfulness and Performance in Reasoning via Multi-Listener Soft Execution [79.98699884805636]
  Reasoning Execution by Multiple Listeners (REMUL) is a multi-party reinforcement learning approach.<n>REMUL builds on the hypothesis that reasoning traces which other parties can follow will be more faithful.<n>Speakers are rewarded for producing reasoning that is clear to listeners.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T02:55:55Z)
• CORE: Context-Robust Remasking for Diffusion Language Models [51.59514489363897]
  We propose Context-Robust Remasking (CORE), a training-free framework for inference-time revision.<n>Rather than trusting static token probabilities, CORE identifies context-brittle tokens by probing their sensitivity to targeted masked-context perturbations.<n>On LLaDA-8B-Base, CORE delivers consistent improvements across reasoning and code benchmarks, outperforming compute-matched baselines and improving MBPP by up to 9.2 percentage points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T00:12:30Z)
• The 'Sure' Trap: Multi-Scale Poisoning Analysis of Stealthy Compliance-Only Backdoors in Fine-Tuned Large Language Models [10.377264470934843]
  Backdoor attacks on large language models typically couple a secret trigger to an explicit malicious output.<n>We introduce a compliance-only backdoor: supervised fine-tuning on a mostly benign dataset in which a small subset of prompts is suffixed with an arbitrary single-word trigger.<n>We conduct a multi-scale analysis of this benign-label poisoning behavior across poison budget, total fine-tuning dataset size, and model size.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-16T02:01:58Z)
• Do LLMs Know They Are Being Tested? Evaluation Awareness and Incentive-Sensitive Failures in GPT-OSS-20B [1.948261185683419]
  We investigate whether "evaluation scent" inflates measured performance without commensurate capability gains.<n>We run six paired A/B scenarios that hold task content and decoding fixed while varying framing.<n>We provide a reproducible A/B framework (prompt banks, validators, per-run scores, scripts) and practical guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T09:49:05Z)
• SEAL: Steerable Reasoning Calibration of Large Language Models for Free [58.931194824519935]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated compelling capabilities for complex reasoning tasks via the extended chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning mechanism.<n>Recent studies reveal substantial redundancy in the CoT reasoning traces, which negatively impacts model performance.<n>We introduce SEAL, a training-free approach that seamlessly calibrates the CoT process, improving accuracy while demonstrating significant efficiency gains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T02:42:07Z)
• MOSSBench: Is Your Multimodal Language Model Oversensitive to Safe Queries? [70.77691645678804]
  Humans are prone to cognitive distortions -- biased thinking patterns that lead to exaggerated responses to specific stimuli. This paper demonstrates that advanced Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) exhibit similar tendencies. We identify three types of stimuli that trigger the oversensitivity of existing MLLMs: Exaggerated Risk, Negated Harm, and Counterintuitive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-22T23:26:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.