The Memory Decision Layer (MDL) is proposed, a zero-parameter memory decision controller situated between the retrieval and generation stages that reduces the hallucination rate under conflicting memories by about 56.04% in general scenarios and approaches zero hallucination in high-risk scenarios.
Abstract
Memory systems for large language models have focused predominantly on efficient retrieval, whereas the decision of whether retrieved memories should be trusted has received comparatively little attention. When the memory store contains conflicting positions, standard retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) blindly injects memories and amplifies hallucinations: in models susceptible to memory injection, the RAG hallucination rate under conflicting memories is markedly higher than that of a memory-free baseline. Inspired by memory signaling mechanisms in the prefrontal cortex, we propose the Memory Decision Layer (MDL), a zero-parameter memory decision controller situated between the retrieval and generation stages. Its core is a three-signal complementary encoder that fuses relevance, reliability, and task risk through QR-based orthogonal subspace projection and a meta-working-memory signal into an interpretable decision representation that quantifies the trustworthiness of retrieved memories. Building on this encoder, MDL explicitly decouples confidence from consistency and introduces risk inversion and explicit abstention. Evaluations on mainstream large language models and multiple open-source datasets show that MDL reduces the hallucination rate under conflicting memories by about 56.04% in general scenarios and approaches zero hallucination in high-risk scenarios. The controller is fully white-box: it relies purely on geometric operations, requires no trained parameters, and adds only about 0.14 ms per decision -- roughly 50x faster than the embedding-retrieval step that precedes it and four to five orders of magnitude faster than an LLM self-evaluation call.
This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.
P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al.· arXiv.org· 727 citations· ⚡54
Consequences of happiness and unhappiness that are beneficial and detrimental for developers' mental well-being, the software development process, and the produced artifacts are found.
D. Graziotin, Fabian Fagerholm, Xiaofeng Wang et al.· Journal of Systems and Softw...· 236 citations· ⚡13
The Mobile-D approach is briefly outlined here and the experiences gained from four case studies are discussed, which helped develop an agile development approach for mobile application development.
P. Abrahamsson, Antti Hanhineva, H. Hulkko et al.· Conference on Object-Oriente...· 225 citations· ⚡18
A study with 42 participants investigates the relationship between the affective states, creativity, and analytical problem-solving skills of software developers and offers support for the claim that happy developers are indeed better problem solvers in terms of their analytical abilities.
D. Graziotin, Xiaofeng Wang, P. Abrahamsson· PeerJ· 216 citations· ⚡13
GAOKAO-Bench is introduced, an intuitive benchmark that employs questions from the Chinese GAOKAO examination as test samples, including both subjective and objective questions that contribute a robust evaluation benchmark for future large language models and offers valuable insights into the advantages and limitations...
Xiaotian Zhang, Chun-yan Li, Yi Zong et al.· arXiv.org· 216 citations· ⚡17
This state-of-practice investigation was performed using a literature review followed by a multiple-case study approach and presents how inconsistency between managerial strategies and execution can lead to failure by means of a behavioral framework.
Carmine Giardino, Xiaofeng Wang, P. Abrahamsson· International Conference on...· 175 citations· ⚡19
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 24, 2026
A new method, called CW-Net, translates the reasoning process of an autonomous vehicle’s AI system into understandable concepts that explain its behavior.
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.