TARL is introduced, a memory state update framework that maps each statement to one of five executable actions and is trained by comparing the memory states produced by alternative update operations, encouraging the model to select the operation that leads to the correct result.
Abstract
Persistent memory helps long-term agents retain knowledge, yet a single update error can repeatedly distort future retrieval and reasoning. Most existing systems reduce memory updating to a binary Write/Hold decision, which cannot distinguish whether new information should be added, ignored, used to revise an outdated belief, rejected as unreliable, or deferred for verification. These choices may share the same binary label while producing fundamentally different memory states. We introduce TARL, a memory state update framework that maps each statement to one of five executable actions. TARL identifies the affected memory, resolves its temporal scope, compares source reliability, and updates accepted, pending, and rejected ledgers. It is further trained by comparing the memory states produced by alternative update operations, encouraging the model to select the operation that leads to the correct result. We also introduce TARL-Mem, a benchmark with fine-grained action labels and next-state targets. Across in-domain, cross-source, temporal, counterfactual, and sequential evaluations, TARL improves action prediction and state recovery, reduces memory pollution, preserves conflicting evidence, and limits cumulative corruption.
Large language model agents that persist across sessions, tools, users, and changing environments do more than answer isolated prompts; they accumulate state. When new evidence arrives, the central question is where that change should live: transient context, external memory, tool or workflow definitions, activation st...
Gabriel Chavira-Juárez, Eder Jahir Gonzalez Bravo, G. Rivera-García et al.· Frontiers in Big Data· 0 citations
TRACE is presented, a training-free layer that treats re-entry as an eligibility decision rather than a storage or retrieval operation, reconciling a departure checkpoint against absence-period updates, resolving explicit and implicit invalidation, and releasing a bounded Return View only when it covers the returning r...
Wen-Jun Xiong, Shengtao Zhang, Shangding Gu et al.· 0 citations
The results suggest that effective long-horizon agent memory depends less on storing more information than on deciding which information should remain active, and that effective long-horizon agent memory depends less on storing more information than on deciding which information should remain active.
The introduction of TEPA, a revocable evidence-memory mechanism that makes validity an explicit state of memory, and the results establish lifecycle revocation as a core memory operation for agents that must falsify, audit, and later re-promote evolving knowledge.
Yan Zhou, Yue Ouyang, Kaiyang Zheng et al.· 3 citations· ⚡1
Long-horizon interactions with LLM-based assistants require memory systems that preserve and update user states, preferences, and interaction histories. Existing evaluations report end-to-end QA accuracy and cannot determine whether errors arise from encoding, retrieval, or generation. We introduce EvalMem, an operatio...
Ze-Yu Liu, Jian-Yuan Zhong, Rong-Duo Han et al.· 0 citations
It is shown that per-memory, type-conditioned temporal decay, a property of western scrub jay episodic memory, can be operationalized as an auto-classified coefficient $\pi_i$ in an external LLM-agent memory store, yielding ScrubJay-MEM, a retrieval-based system with substantially positive GenGap.
K. Bhandari, Aarya Wadhwani, Dhruv Kumar et al.· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.