arXiv:2609.12320v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Traditional large language models (LLMs) are scoped to individual user sessions, limiting their knowledge to a single conversation and preventing them from learning user preferences that evolve over time. Existing agentic memory systems address this limitation but generally operate at the individual-user level, restricting the public knowledge that could be shared across users to improve downstream responses. We introduce AIM (Agentic Interoperable Memory), a unified, privacy-aware memory framework that enables multi-agent, multi-user LLM systems to persistently manage private and shared memory. AIM dynamically classifies information as private, scoped to one user and inaccessible to others, or public, accessible to all users. It enforces index-level access controls so that private memories are retrievable only by their owner, protecting sensitive data while allowing beneficial shared knowledge to improve coordination and consistency. We also introduce MUMBench (Multi-User Memory Benchmark), a dataset of multi-user interactions containing private and shareable information across four domains. To our knowledge, MUMBench is the first public dataset designed to evaluate multiple memory operations, including retrieval, creation, update, and deletion, in a multi-user environment. Across three independent runs on MUMBench, AIM achieves 96.0% visibility classification accuracy, 58.8% strict operation accuracy, and 70.5% state-aware operation accuracy.

arXiv:2609.12002v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used as automated judges for model training and evaluation, yet individual judges exhibit systematic biases that undermine reliability. Much of prior work has studied biases in pairwise LLM-as-a-judge settings; in this paper, we focus on absolute scoring tasks, which mirror more realistic use cases. Across four benchmarks and six models (36 judge-examinee pairs), we show that a model's task accuracy strongly predicts its judging accuracy (Pearson $r \geq 0.90$ on most models) and inversely predicts its directional bias ($r \leq -0.83$), but that accuracy alone does not ensure fair evaluation: more capable examinee models consistently receive more lenient judgments from all judges ($r \geq 0.83$). To address this, we propose calibrated weighted majority voting (WMV), an ensemble evaluation method that aggregates multiple LLM judges weighted by online estimates of their false-positive and false-negative rates. We introduce a disagreement-based estimator that derives these error rates purely from inter-judge agreement patterns, requiring no ground-truth labels or task metadata. In a simulated experiment with shifting task distributions, our label-free WMV tracks an oracle with perfect error-rate knowledge to within 0.5 percentage points on average, outperforming both individual judges and unweighted majority voting. These results demonstrate that principled multi-judge calibration can simultaneously improve accuracy and correct for systematic leniency without requiring labeled data, offering a scalable path to reliable automated evaluation as model capabilities increase.