Enter--Propagation--Recovery (E-P-R), a trajectory-level framework that asks where memory first changes an action, whether that change carries forward, and whether the agent can recover after leaving a correct path is proposed, to diagnose how models consume retrieved memory across a multi-step action trajectory.
Abstract
Memory is becoming a core component of long-horizon AI agents, allowing agents to reuse past experience when operating web browsers, software tools, and other interactive environments. Existing work mostly treats memory as a supply problem, asking what experience to write, how to store it, and which entry to retrieve for the next task. Yet we still lack a clear account of how models consume retrieved memory across a multi-step action trajectory. This consumption process matters because it determines not only what memories should be retrieved, but also what models and control policies are needed to use them safely. To diagnose this process, we propose Entry--Propagation--Recovery (E-P-R), a trajectory-level framework that asks where memory first changes an action, whether that change carries forward, and whether the agent can recover after leaving a correct path. We instantiate E-P-R on WebArena and on MemTrapBench, a controlled benchmark we build to isolate these phases. We find that the main failure often begins at entry: agents adopt conflicting memory at the first exposed decision point even when it is task-wrong. Repeated exposure then amplifies this early error, while recovery after divergence is weak. Together, these effects create a compliance trap: across models, conflicting memory induces similar compliance rates, but once agents comply, their success rates collapse to a low floor. Stronger agents therefore suffer larger absolute damage because each compliance event erases more baseline capability. These results suggest that memory-augmented agents should be evaluated not only by retrieval quality or final success rate, but by how they consume memory throughout the trajectory.
Large language model (LLM)-powered agents can be accurate on average yet unreliable in production, a discrepancy that has been observed but remains largely unaddressed. When given the same task five times, a ReAct agent on the AppWorld benchmark using GPT-4.1 succeeds in all five runs only 53% of the time, even though its per-run pass rate averages 77%. We call this 24-point shortfall the consistency gap, and we argue that addressing it is a precondition for trustworthy AI agent deployment. We present a self-evolving agent framework that reduces this gap by identifying unstable, low-consistency steps in agent trajectories and converting them into episodic memory the agent can draw on in future runs. At its core is a Consistency Analyzer that pinpoints where and why a trajectory is likely to flip across executions, and a Guideline Generator that converts the diagnosis into targeted guidelines, committed to memory and injected into future agent executions on similar tasks. On AppWorld with ReAct/GPT-4.1, our framework raises the fraction of tasks that succeed in all five runs by +16 points on same-task evaluation and +13 points on similar-task generalization.
Evelyn Duesterwald, Benjamin Elder, Lilian Ngweta et al.· 0 citations
LLM agents that operate over many turns accumulate facts in an external memory store and reuse them as premises for downstream reasoning. A hallucinated fact written at one step therefore persists as a false premise for every subsequent step, a failure mode we call memory contamination. Existing memory management addresses retrieval and capacity but not write-time correctness; this admission problem cannot be solved by utility- or recency-based criteria, and uncontrolled contamination compounds across long trajectories. We propose ConsistencyGate, a write-time admission gate that, before committing a candidate fact m extracted from context c, queries the LLM K times for a soft support score and admits m only when the average exceeds a threshold. The mechanism is model-agnostic, requires no fine-tuning, and reduces to a single forward pass in a log-probability variant for latency-sensitive deployments. To measure the effect on natural data, we construct two real-conversation benchmarks (LoCoMo-Contam and MSC-Contam) by planting controlled single-detail corruptions in long-term conversations from LoCoMo and MSC, and complement them with a structured synthetic corpus (MemContam) that isolates a near-oracle upper bound. Across four LLM backbones, ConsistencyGate reduces contamination on every benchmark relative to a write-everything baseline, with the cost concentrated on facts that are stated only implicitly in the source context. We release all three benchmarks together with the gate implementation.
This paper argues that Muscle Memory - the practice of compiling recurring user intent into purpose-built specialist agents - is a distinct memory paradigm from retrieval, and argues that compilation is a better fit for the workloads where current assistants impose a multi-turn tax on their users.
Autonomous AI agents increasingly select actions in environments whose memory, execution-time, runtime, compute, and operational constraints determine what counts as a suitable plan. We call the absence of this execution context from an agent's planning state substrate blindness. We test this general proposition through numerical code generation, where selected implementation choices and operational consequences are directly observable. Three frontier model configurations--Anthropic Claude Opus 5, OpenAI GPT-5.6-Sol, and Google Gemini 3.7 Flash--generate code for a high-dimensional pairwise Euclidean-distance task either from the task alone or with a 128 MB RAM and 10.0 s wall-time contract. Contract disclosure reduced measured peak process memory in 13 of 14 executable index-aligned task-only versus contract-disclosed comparisons and reduced mean wall time in all three cohorts, making execution up to 3.1x faster. Across the audited corpus, disclosure produced structural code changes including bounded blocking, float32 retention, upper-triangle traversal, and in-place or memory-mapped buffers. At a tighter 96 MB contract, independently sampled contract-disclosed cohorts achieved correct-and-within-budget outcomes of 4/5 for Claude Opus 5, 5/5 for GPT-5.6-Sol, and 3/5 for Gemini 3.7 Flash, compared with task-only outcomes of 0/5, 1/5, and 0/5; cohort mean MaxRSS and wall time were 49-74% and 35-64% lower than their task-only references. These results establish a controlled proof of concept for substrate-aware agent planning: a minimal execution contract induces proactive structural adaptation in generated programs, shifting computation away from unconstrained allocations and substantially improving observed resource-time profiles before execution.
Long-horizon agents increasingly use persistent memory and tools to take actions with external side effects. A central failure mode is premature commitment: an agent acts before resolving whether its memory grounding is stale, conflicting, incomplete, or corrupted. We formalize this problem as safe commitment under memory uncertainty and introduce SafeCommit, a risk controlled layer between agent reasoning and external execution. The layer constructs a calibrated set of plausible latent worlds from memory, observations, tool outputs, provenance, and policy constraints. It permits a side effectful action only when a conformal action certificate shows that the action is safe in every retained world. Otherwise, it selects a low-side-effect probe that targets the worlds blocking certification, or returns a conservative fallback. Under calibrated world coverage, the probability of an unsafe certified commit is at most the target level {\alpha}; with imperfect world proposal, the bound separates calibration and representation error. A dependency-free controlled simulator illustrates the safety-utility tradeoff and reproduces all reported results with one command. The goal is to offer a concrete approach for deciding not only what an agent should do, but when the available evidence is sufficient to safely do it.
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.
Han Xiao, Hongjun Xu, Xin Zhang 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.
