Semantic Commit: Helping Users Update Intent Specifications for AI Memory at Scale
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
How do we update AI memory of user intent as intent changes? We consider how an AI interface may assist the integration of new information into a repository of natural language data. Inspired by software engineering concepts like impact analysis, we develop methods and a UI for managing semantic changes with non-local effects, which we call "semantic conflict resolution." The user commits new intent to a project -- makes a "semantic commit" -- and the AI helps the user detect and resolve semantic conflicts within a store of existing information representing their intent (an "intent specification"). We develop an interface, SemanticCommit, to better understand how users resolve conflicts when updating intent specifications such as Cursor Rules and game design documents. A knowledge graph-based RAG pipeline drives conflict detection, while LLMs assist in suggesting resolutions. We evaluate our technique on an initial benchmark. Then, we report a 12 user within-subjects study of SemanticCommit for two task domains -- game design documents, and AI agent memory in the style of ChatGPT memories -- where users integrated new information into an existing list. Half of our participants adopted a workflow of impact analysis, where they would first flag conflicts without AI revisions then resolve conflicts locally, despite having access to a global revision feature. We argue that AI agent interfaces, such as software IDEs like Cursor and Windsurf, should provide affordances for impact analysis and help users validate AI retrieval independently from generation. Our work speaks to how AI agent designers should think about updating memory as a process that involves human feedback and decision-making.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 39 of its 123 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Apr 2025.
Builds on
39 of 123 references.
References · 39
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
- 2024From Local to Global: A Graph RAG Approach to Query-Focused Summarizationcited by 1,411
- 2024Two Tales of Persona in LLMs: A Survey of Role-Playing and Personalizationcited by 203
- 2022Co-Writing Screenplays and Theatre Scripts with Language Models: An Evaluation by Industry Professionalscited by 191
- 2024Who Validates the Validators? Aligning LLM-Assisted Evaluation of LLM Outputs with Human Preferencescited by 142
- 2021To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-makingcited by 118
- 2023ChainForge: A Visual Toolkit for Prompt Engineering and LLM Hypothesis Testingcited by 88
- 2023The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AIcited by 85
- 2024Concept Induction: Analyzing Unstructured Text with High-Level Concepts Using LLooMcited by 77
- 2024Collaborative Gym: A Framework for Enabling and Evaluating Human-Agent Collaborationcited by 60
- 2023VISAR: A Human-AI Argumentative Writing Assistant with Visual Programming and Rapid Draft Prototypingcited by 46
- 2023Grounding Gaps in Language Model Generationscited by 45
27 more
- 2023Advancing Requirements Engineering through Generative AI: Assessing the Role of LLMscited by 42
- 2024Need Help? Designing Proactive AI Assistants for Programmingcited by 42
- 2024Cocoa: Co-Planning and Co-Execution with AI Agentscited by 38
- 2023Beyond the Chat: Executable and Verifiable Text-Editing with LLMscited by 35
- 2025Assistance or Disruption? Exploring and Evaluating the Design and Trade-offs of Proactive AI Programming Supportcited by 33
- 2024Aligning Language Models with Demonstrated Feedbackcited by 32
- 2022Investigating Reasons for Disagreement in Natural Language Inferencecited by 29
- 2024"My agent understands me better": Integrating Dynamic Human-like Memory Recall and Consolidation in LLM-Based Agentscited by 29
- 2024Improving Steering and Verification in AI-Assisted Data Analysis with Interactive Task Decompositioncited by 29
- 2025Navigating Rifts in Human-LLM Grounding: Study and Benchmarkcited by 27
- 2024What Should We Engineer in Prompts? Training Humans in Requirement-Driven LLM Usecited by 24
- 2023RELIC: Investigating Large Language Model Responses using Self-Consistencycited by 23
- 2024The Future of AI-Driven Software Engineeringcited by 23
- 2024Rambler: Supporting Writing With Speech via LLM-Assisted Gist Manipulationcited by 18
- 2024Exploring the Design Space of Cognitive Engagement Techniques with AI-Generated Code for Enhanced Learningcited by 16
- 2024Leveraging LLMs for the Quality Assurance of Software Requirementscited by 15
- 2025Beyond Code Generation: LLM-supported Exploration of the Program Design Spacecited by 13
- 2024Lessons from the Use of Natural Language Inference (NLI) in Requirements Engineering Taskscited by 12
- 2023Selenite: Scaffolding Online Sensemaking with Comprehensive Overviews Elicited from Large Language Modelscited by 10
- 2024An AI-Resilient Text Rendering Technique for Reading and Skimming Documentscited by 10
- 2023Portrayal: Leveraging NLP and Visualization for Analyzing Fictional Characterscited by 7
- 2024Imagining a Future of Designing with AI: Dynamic Grounding, Constructive Negotiation, and Sustainable Motivationcited by 7
- 2025Making the Write Connections: Linking Writing Support Tools with Writer's Needscited by 7
- 2019How Different Are Different diff Algorithms in Git?cited by 6
- 2024Requirements are All You Need: The Final Frontier for End-User Software Engineeringcited by 5
- 2025Feedforward in Generative AI: Opportunities for a Design Spacecited by 5
- 2025On Reference (In-)Determinacy in Natural Language Inferencecited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026When Users Change Their Minds: Measuring and Repairing Intent Drift in LLM Agents
- 2026Beyond Oracle Communication: Benchmarking Interactive Intent Alignment Under Miscommunication and Evolving User Intent
- 2026Coupling Planning with Episodic Memory in LLM Agents for Software Issue Resolution
- 2026STALE: Can LLM Agents Know When Their Memories Are No Longer Valid?
- 2026AMA-Bench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Memory for Agentic Applications
- 2025ConInstruct: Evaluating Large Language Models on Conflict Detection and Resolution in Instructions
- 2026Grounding Agent Memory in Contextual Intent
- 2026When Personal Memory Has No Single Answer: Evaluating LLM Agents under Irreducible Conflict