Organizations: School of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK · School of Life Science and Technology, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China · Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK · Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Shanghai Sixth People’s Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China
AI systems increasingly retrieve from records that revise themselves: issue threads, encyclopedic histories, policy logs, and long conversations. The challenge is not only finding relevant evidence, but deciding which claims remain in force, which were superseded, and when to abstain. Structured memories promise to solve this with typed edges, temporal updates, and conflict status, yet evaluations often change mechanism and prompt presentation together. We study this as Evidence-State Revision, comparing flat retrieval, coarse edge invalidation, and fine-grained RevisionLedger on 2,907 high-agreement questions from GitHub, multi-repo issue histories, Wikipedia, and DyKnow-style temporal streams. A render-matched control (same layout, deprecation disabled) reveals the central confound: when a value is changed and later restored, RevisionLedger appears to beat a flat baseline by +0.182, but almost all the gain comes from easier presentation; the fine-grained mechanism residual is indistinguishable from zero (+0.021 to +0.025 across two judge families). After presentation is controlled, coarse invalidation is the only mechanism that pays for current-state queries, beating the fine ledger by 0.084; the same query-sufficiency principle says provenance mainly needs retained invalidated evidence, not richer typing. Memory evaluations should hold render fixed, and deprecation-aware systems should deploy the coarsest retained state that covers their queries.
AI agents that persist across sessions need memory they can retrieve, audit, update, and erase. Existing memory systems often collapse source evidence, extracted facts, retrieved context, and answer policy into one opaque prompt path, making failures difficult to diagnose: a wrong answer may come from missing evidence, unsupported extraction, stale state, retrieval loss, or answer-model behavior. We present Eywa, a provenance-grounded memory architecture built around evidence before belief. Eywa stores immutable source evidence before deriving canonical facts, validates extracted memories against typed signals and source support, and retrieves bounded memory context through a deterministic multi-route read path with zero LLM calls inside retrieval. Retrieved context is returned separately from answer instructions, allowing the same memory substrate to be evaluated across frontier, budget, and local answer models. Under a frozen, artifact-recorded retrieval configuration, Eywa reaches 90.19% judge accuracy on the LoCoMo C1-C4 split with Claude Sonnet 4.6 write and QA roles. On LongMemEval-S, it reaches 88.2% retrieval-sufficiency accuracy. On BEAM, a 700-question technical-memory stress benchmark, it reaches 81.45% mean nugget score and 85.29% pass@score >= 0.5. Full per-question artifacts, including questions, gold answers, model answers, retrieved context, and labels, are published at https://eywa.to/research.
A memory can answer a current query correctly while discarding distinctions required by a later update. We investigate this failure with a paired-history audit: two histories have the same current answer, receive a shared future update, and require different subsequent answers. A pilot evaluates 24 history pairs across six synthetic mechanisms, 12 memory conditions, two repeats, and two model backends. A deterministic frontier selector obtains strict reveal accuracy of 96/96 on DeepSeek and 82/96 on GLM; a structured writer obtains 62 successes with one unresolved outcome and 56/96. The configured four-outcome joint contrast has finite-sample identification intervals of [0.521, 0.542] and [0.292, 0.313], not confidence intervals. A record-level audit distinguishes retained-state adequacy, response delivery, and answer-schema compliance without changing those original scores. It finds 26 and 25 well-formed but semantically wrong structured reveal memories, while all 14 GLM frontier reveal failures contain correct values in the wrong wrapper. Tombstone removal produces 16/16 exact replay failures in the targeted mechanism. Identifier renaming then exposes a separate flaw: original frontier late-reference adequacy falls from 8/8 to 94/320 transformed instances. We provide and test a label-equivariant repair, but it preserves only 2/8 original late-reference answers: eliminating a naming shortcut does not solve unknown future relevance. These results support a scoped evaluation methodology and reproducible failure analysis, not general superiority of the repaired algorithm. Paid pilot evidence, retrospective diagnostics, and new offline tests are reported separately; no independent held-out or natural-task validation is claimed.
Long-term conversational memory requires retrieving evidence scattered across multiple sessions, yet single-pass retrieval fails on temporal and multi-hop questions. Existing iterative methods refine queries via generated content or document-level signals, but none explicitly diagnoses the evidence gap, namely what is missing from the accumulated retrieval set, leaving query refinement untargeted. We present EviMem, combining IRIS (Iterative Retrieval via Insufficiency Signals), a closed-loop framework that detects evidence gaps through sufficiency evaluation, diagnoses what is missing, and drives targeted query refinement, with LaceMem (Layered Architecture for Conversational Evidence Memory), a coarse-to-fine memory hierarchy supporting fine-grained gap diagnosis. On LoCoMo, EviMem improves Judge Accuracy over MIRIX on temporal (73.3% to 81.6%) and multi-hop (65.9% to 85.2%) questions at 4.5x lower latency. Code: https://github.com/AIGeeksGroup/EviMem.