Humans excel at performing complex tasks by leveraging long-term memory across temporal and spatial experiences. In contrast, current Large Language Models (LLMs) struggle to effectively plan and act in dynamic, multi-room 3D environments. We posit that part of this limitation is due to the lack of proper 3D spatial-temporal memory modeling in LLMs. To address this, we first introduce 3DMem-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark comprising over 26,000 trajectories and 2,892 embodied tasks, question-answering and captioning, designed to evaluate an agent's ability to reason over long-term memory in 3D environments. Second, we propose 3DLLM-Mem, a novel dynamic memory management and fusion model for embodied spatial-temporal reasoning and actions in LLMs. Our model uses working memory tokens, which represents current observations, as queries to selectively attend to and fuse the most useful spatial and temporal features from episodic memory, which stores past observations and interactions. Our approach allows the agent to focus on task-relevant information while maintaining memory efficiency in complex, long-horizon environments. Experimental results demonstrate that 3DLLM-Mem achieves state-of-the-art performance across various tasks, outperforming the strongest baselines by 16.5% in success rate on 3DMem-Bench's most challenging in-the-wild embodied tasks.
Gabrielle Kaili-May Liu, Gal Yona, Avi Caciularu, Idan Szpektor, Tim G. J. Rudner, Arman Cohan
A critical component in the trustworthiness of LLMs is reliable uncertainty communication, yet LLMs often use assertive language when conveying false claims, leading to over-reliance and eroded trust. We present the first systematic study of $\textit{faithful confidence calibration}$ of LLMs, benchmarking models' ability to use linguistic expressions of uncertainty that $\textit{faithfully reflect}$ their intrinsic uncertainty, across a comprehensive array of models, datasets, and prompting strategies. Our results demonstrate that LLMs largely fail at this task, and that existing interventions are insufficient: standard prompt approaches provide only marginal gains, and existing, factuality-based calibration techniques can even harm faithful calibration. To address this critical gap, we introduce MetaFaith, a novel prompt-based calibration approach inspired by human metacognition. We show that MetaFaith robustly improves faithful calibration across diverse models and task domains, enabling up to 61% improvement in faithfulness and achieving an 83% win rate over original generations as judged by humans.