What Must Generalist Agents Remember?

Despite the wide deployment of memory in large-model agents, there is no unified formal account of what a memory is or when it is optimal. This paper takes a first step toward this account. The central idea is that memory is a basis, knowledge is its span, and answerability is a coverage problem: an agent stores events extracted from a material; a generation operator turns any event set into the knowledge it entails; and a query is answerable exactly when some single item in the span covers it. The optimal memory is then the capacity-constrained maximizer of expected coverage, and its value traces a utility--capacity frontier, the common yardstick on which memory systems can be compared. Next, we consider noise in the memory and discuss coverage versus precision under it: a memory may store false claims, so the write policy must infer the truth of what it stores. Drawing an analogy with biological memory, which is formed continuously through ongoing experience, we formalize the continual agent-memory problem in a sequential MDP that covers multiple levels, where memory is the state, writing is the action, and the utility settled at query time is the delayed reward that drives learning. To make the framework concrete, we instantiate it on Homer's \emph{Odyssey}, turning the frontier, the compression zone, and the divergence of coverage from precision into concrete numbers. Finally, we position existing systems within the framework, making ``how good is a memory'' measurable and recasting the open problems of constructing and learning agent memory as concrete research questions.

In long-horizon tasks, decision-relevant state is often scattered across an expanding trajectory, while the action agent must surface it and act. As trajectories grow, task requirements, environment facts, prior attempts, diagnoses, and open subgoals can be buried in the context window or pushed beyond it, failing to influence decisions when needed. We call this failure mode "behavioral state decay". We study memory as an active intervention mechanism rather than passive retrieval. A separate memory agent runs alongside an unmodified action agent, updating a structured memory bank from the recent trajectory and deciding whether to inject a memory-grounded reminder or remain silent. The module is plug-and-play with frontier action agents and existing agent harnesses. Across Terminal-Bench 2.0 and $τ^2$-Bench, it improves pass@1 for both weaker and stronger action agents, with gains of +8.3 pp on Terminal-Bench and +6.8 pp on $τ^2$-Bench. Ablations show that selective intervention outperforms passive bank exposure, always-on injection, advisor-only guidance, and general retrieval. As an early step toward open-weight memory policies, we train Qwen3.5-27B on SETA using SFT and GRPO, improving validation reward and achieving partial transfer to Terminal-Bench.

LLM agents accumulate histories that outgrow their context windows, motivating a growing literature on memory systems. Yet most existing designs are tuned to a single scenario (multi-session chat or a single trajectory format), and there is little evidence that they generalize across the heterogeneous trajectories agents encounter in deployment. We revisit eight memory systems plus an agentic harness for search problems, on five scenarios: single-turn QA, multi-session chat, agentic-trajectory QA, memory stress tests, and long-horizon agentic tasks. The harness, which self-manages flat text-file storage via tool calls, achieves the best cross-task ranking, suggesting that memory performance hinges on giving the agent active control over storage and retrieval rather than on a passive store behind a fixed pipeline. We instantiate this insight in AutoMEM, an agentic memory harness with a self-managed tool interface that achieves the best cross-scenario generality among the systems we evaluate.