Large language model (LLM) agents show promise in an increasing number of domains. In many proposed applications, it is expected that the agent reasons over accumulated experience presented in an input prompt. We propose the OEDD (Operationalize Experience Despite Distraction) corpus, a human-annotator-validated body of scenarios with pre-scripted agent histories where the agent must make a decision based on disparate experiential information in the presence of a distractor. We evaluate three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4o, and Gemini 1.5 Pro) using a minimal chain-of-thought prompting strategy and observe that when (1) the input context contains over 1,615 tokens of historical interactions, (2) a crucially decision-informing premise is the rightful conclusion over two disparate environment premises, and (3) a trivial, but distracting red herring fact follows, all LLMs perform worse than random choice at selecting the better of two actions. Our code and test corpus are publicly available at: https://github.com/sonnygeorge/OEDD .

Presenting a predictive model's performance is a communication bottleneck that threatens collaborations between data scientists and subject matter experts. Accuracy and error metrics alone fail to tell the whole story of a model - its risks, strengths, and limitations - making it difficult for subject matter experts to feel confident in their decision to use a model. As a result, models may fail in unexpected ways or go entirely unused, as subject matter experts disregard poorly presented models in favor of familiar, yet arguably substandard methods. In this paper, we describe an iterative study conducted with both subject matter experts and data scientists to understand the gaps in communication between these two groups. We find that, while the two groups share common goals of understanding the data and predictions of the model, friction can stem from unfamiliar terms, metrics, and visualizations - limiting the transfer of knowledge to SMEs and discouraging clarifying questions being asked during presentations. Based on our findings, we derive a set of communication guidelines that use visualization as a common medium for communicating the strengths and weaknesses of a model. We provide a demonstration of our guidelines in a regression modeling scenario and elicit feedback on their use from subject matter experts. From our demonstration, subject matter experts were more comfortable discussing a model's performance, more aware of the trade-offs for the presented model, and better equipped to assess the model's risks - ultimately informing and contextualizing the model's use beyond text and numbers.