Arash Shahmansoori
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
LLM agents that store knowledge as natural language suffer steep retrieval degradation as condition count grows, often struggle to compose learned rules reliably, and typically lack explicit mechanisms to detect stale or adversarial knowledge. We introduce PRECEPT, a unified framework for test-time adaptation with three tightly coupled components: (1) deterministic exact-match rule retrieval over structured condition ...
keys, (2) conflict-aware memory with Bayesian source reliability and threshold-based rule invalidation, and (3) COMPASS, a Pareto-guided prompt-evolution outer loop. Exact retrieval eliminates partial-match interpretation errors on the deterministic path (0% by construction, vs 94.4% under Theorem~B.6's independence model at N=10) and supports compositional stacking through a semantic tier hierarchy; conflict-aware memory resolves static--dynamic disagreements and supports drift adaptation; COMPASS evaluates prompts through the same end-to-end execution pipeline. Results (9--10 seeds): PRECEPT achieves a +41.1pp first-try advantage over Full Reflexion (d>1.9), +33.3pp compositional generalization (d=1.55), 100% $P_1$ on 2-way logistics compositions (d=2.64), +40--55pp continuous learning gains, strong eventual robustness under adversarial static knowledge (100% logistics with adversarial SK active; partial recovery on integration), +55.0pp drift recovery (d=0.95, p=0.031), and 61% fewer steps. Core comparisons are statistically significant, often at p<0.001.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
LLM agents that store knowledge as natural language suffer steep retrieval degradation as condition count grows, often struggle to compose learned rules reliably, and typically lack explicit mechanisms to detect stale or adversarial knowledge.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
Matched via arXiv identifier search
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Models
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Retrieval / indexing
Methods
Transformer, Retrieval-augmented generation
Domains
Large Language Models, Information Retrieval
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.