Multimodal large language model (MLLM) agents are increasingly used as personal assistants for long-running tasks. Their utility depends on continuity: agents must retrieve and use earlier evidence across dialogue, files, and workspace state. However, agents can generate plausible answers even when access to that history has degraded, causing outcome-only evaluation to overestimate true evidence use. We present MIRAGE (Multimodal Interaction Retrieval, Attribution, and Grounding Evaluation), a controlled study of historical evidence use under conversation-state variation in multimodal personal agents. MIRAGE holds evidence objects, questions, and scoring fixed while varying only conversation state, and evaluates whether an agent can determine answerability, recover the correct source, and answer from it. Across seven frontier and open-weight multimodal backbones, we find that: 1) pre-compaction depth and post-compaction continuation form distinct, non-monotonic failure regimes rather than a single degradation curve; 2) open-weight models rely heavily on context continuity and are reluctant to spontaneously switch to tool-mediated retrieval when provenance fails; and 3) retrieval pressure improves source attribution in deep pre-compaction states for tool-compliant models, but consistently regresses after compaction, where stored evidence has already degraded. These findings show that historical evidence use should be evaluated under state variation, rather than inferred from outcome-only correctness.
Yu Liu, Wen-Xiao Zhang, Cheng Hu et al.· 0 citations
Self-improving agents accumulate capability by repeatedly rewriting procedural policies, controllers, or heuristic rules. They typically rely on self-authored tests or metrics to decide whether to accept subsequent edits. The agent controls both the optimized object and its verifier. As a result, self-assigned scores can remain near perfect while real deployment performance degrades or stays low. We study this problem through the verifier--deployment gap. This gap refers to the discrepancy between an agent's self-authored verification signal and a sealed deployment evaluation that the agent cannot observe or access. We ask how self-authored verification fails under iterative policy-and-test rewriting, how the failure changes with capability, and how little exogenous trust is sufficient to prevent real regressions from being deployed. To address this problem, we introduce a Sealed Exogenous Acceptance Loop (SEAL). SEAL retains self-authored tests but compares each candidate with the incumbent through a fixed harness-side audit. The agent cannot author or inspect the audit, receives only accept/reject, and the whole incumbent state is retained after a clear regression. Our experiments show that this problem often appears in heuristic learning settings. These settings require trial-and-error discovery of the target objective. We further find that failures of self-written verification are stratified by capability. Weaker agents tend to damage previously acquired strategies behind easy self-tests. Stronger agents are more stable, but they still mismeasure the deployment distribution. Standard self-written constraints do not reliably close this gap. In contrast, SEAL outperforms unprotected baselines across six models and three random seeds. Reliable self-improvement need not abandon self-verification, but it requires at least one deployment-acceptance signal outside the agent's control.
