arXiv preprint ·
Knowing the Store: What a Memory Backend Must Write Down Before an Agent Can Read It
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
An agent with long-term memory can answer from a record it should no longer use, such as a plan the user later cancelled. We ask what a memory store must expose for an agent to know this before retrieving anything, and we score that judgment on its own, as metamemory monitoring. Readers see only a value-free summary: record counts by lifecycle state and a list of attribute names. Each of 148 questions is asked against three versions of one store that differ in one attribute, so wording cannot give the answer away. What a model adds depends on the length of that list. On the short lists the benchmark's ground truth produces (2.6 names on average), none of five language models reliably beats a cosine-similarity lookup over the names, and the three stronger ones are equivalent to it within 0.05. Under a control that fixes counts and list length, none is reliably above it and none is shown equivalent. On lists longer than the stores we tested write, padded to 60 names, the lookup loses 0.18; GPT-5.6 Luna and Sol lose 0.06 to 0.07 and lead it by 0.13 to 0.14, while the other three fall with it. The lead holds for Sol against a sibling padded to the same length and counts. Reworded to share no word with the names, the lookup loses 0.02 and one stronger reader edges 0.04 ahead. On the short lists the three stronger readers lead only where the summary counts a state without naming it, and one count feature closes that lead within a question, though not when items are pooled. The backends we tested omit or misstate this information: under FR-Bank's own metadata, GPT-4.1 mini, Haiku 4.5 and the lookup fall from 0.73, 0.82 and 0.75 to 0.60, 0.71 and 0.59. In these tests, what the store wrote down limited every reader we gave it to. All stores are synthetic; control, whether a better judgment yields a better answer, is left to a later study.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
How RL Reshapes LLM Reasoning: Transferability, Coverage, and Scaling Laws
Agent Behavior as Code: Efficient and Robust LLM Agents with Programmatic Specifications
Agentic Cognitive Depth: Operational Criteria for Evaluating LLM Agents
DICE: Decoupling Capability from Intervention Necessity in LLM Tutoring
Language Model Fingerprinting Requires Rethinking Watermark Teachers
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.