MIRAGE: How Conversation State Shapes Historical Evidence Use in Multimodal Personal Agents
TL;DR
Findings show that historical evidence use should be evaluated under state variation, rather than inferred from outcome-only correctness, and that open-weight models rely heavily on context continuity and are reluctant to spontaneously switch to tool-mediated retrieval when provenance fails.
Abstract
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.
