When Memory Updates but Behavior Does Not: Repairing Implicit Stale Dependencies in Personalized Agent Responses

Haofei Sun; Lin He

cs.AIAug 3, 2026

When Memory Updates but Behavior Does Not: Repairing Implicit Stale Dependencies in Personalized Agent Responses

Authors: Haofei Sun, Lin He

Abstract

Memory-augmented agents can know that a user's stored state is outdated and still plan around the old value. The STALE benchmark calls this the implicit policy adaptation (IPA) gap. We identify one structural contributor: draft-anchored verification checks what a response says, and in an open-ended response the stale dependency is usually unsaid. StateAuditor therefore audits in the opposite direction, from stored state to draft. An LLM proposes candidate old-to-new transitions from timestamped evidence; deterministic code pins each quotation to a single entry, checks that the new evidence really is newer, and lets only these verified transitions trigger repair. What is verified is provenance and chronology - not semantic supersession. On STALE's full protocol (400 scenarios, 50-session histories, one independent response per query), strict single-query VTA scores .736 against .686 for our locked predecessor under the same judge: a +5.0-point paired gain (95% CI [+2.9, +7.2]) coming almost entirely from IPA and premise resistance (PR). The benchmark's own judge, from a third model family, reproduces the gain (.738 vs. .680). On an independent cross-family preference-evolution benchmark (HorizonBench), the full draft-audit-repair pipeline over a gold-derived structured store raises current-preference accuracy (user-clustered p<.01), though a matched control shows most of this external gain is the draft-side audit itself; a harder authored lifecycle set gives no gain, bounding the claim while false invalidation stays controlled. On STALE, by contrast, a matched control (same evidence, adapter, and call budget) scores only .692 (+0.6 over the predecessor, n.s.), attributing the STALE gain to the transition machinery rather than added context or calls. We make no claim about general-purpose agent memory.

Explore similar work

May 7, 2026cs.CL

STALE: Can LLM Agents Know When Their Memories Are No Longer Valid?

Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly expected to maintain coherent, long-term personalized memory, yet current benchmarks primarily measure static fact retrieval, overlooking the ability to revise stored beliefs when new evidence emerges. We identify a critical and underexplored failure mode, Implicit Conflict: a later observation invalidates an earlier memory without explicit negation, requiring contextual inference and commonsense reasoning to detect. To rigorously evaluate this capability, we introduce STALE, a benchmark of 400 expert-validated conflict scenarios (1,200 evaluation queries across three probing dimensions) spanning over 100 everyday topics with contexts up to 150K tokens. We propose a three-dimensional probing framework that tests State Resolution (detecting that a prior belief is outdated), Premise Resistance (rejecting queries that falsely presuppose a stale state), and Implicit Policy Adaptation (proactively applying updated states in downstream behavior). A systematic evaluation of frontier LLMs and specialized memory frameworks reveals a pervasive gap between retrieving updated evidence and acting on it, with even the best evaluated model achieving only 55.2% overall accuracy. Models often accept outdated assumptions embedded in a user's query, and they struggle to recognize when a change in one aspect of the user's state should invalidate related memories. To establish an initial baseline for state-aware memory, we further present CUPMem, a prototype that strengthens write-time revision through structured state consolidation and propagation-aware search, suggesting that explicit state adjudication is a promising direction for robust agentic memory.

Hanxiang Chao, Yihan Bai, Rui Sheng +2

Agent Memory Gradient Staleness Large Language Model Agents

Ask PDF

Aug 7, 2026cs.AI

TEPA: Revoking Stale Memories for Conflict-Robust Language Agents

Long-term memory enables language agents to reuse past facts, preferences, and task experience. Persistence also creates a central falsifiability problem: when the world changes, stale memories can remain retrievable and pollute the prompt. We characterize this failure mode as memory pollution: degradation caused by active memories that newer conflicting evidence has superseded. We introduce TEPA, a revocable evidence-memory mechanism that makes validity an explicit state of memory. TEPA represents observations as keyed precedents and revokes active precedents when fresh evidence contradicts them under the same key, allowing retrieval to draw from current evidence while preserving revoked history for audit. Across controlled hidden-regime drift, real file-backed executable drift, and preference-update streams, revocation prevents stale active memory from remaining in the retrieval set after reversal. In controlled drift over 50 seeds, append-only and last-write-wins memory fell below no memory during full reversal (append-only and last-write-wins both 0.210, no memory 0.309, TEPA 0.950), and the same pattern reproduced under real file execution (append-only 0.203, no memory 0.298, TEPA 0.950). On clean MemoryAgentBench SH-6k, TEPA matches a strong last-write-wins cache, confirming that current-key replacement is the decisive operation for single-hop fact consolidation. Boundary tests on multi-hop and very long-context MemoryAgentBench settings expose retrieval-chain and context-selection bottlenecks beyond fact-level validity tracking. Together, these 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 +1

Agent Memory Gradient Staleness Opti-Agent-Bench Bottlenecks

Ask PDF

Aug 5, 2026cs.CL

When Memory Lies: An Empirical Study of Spatial Memory Staleness in VLM Agents

Memory-augmented VLM agents act on persistent spatial knowledge, yet that knowledge silently goes stale as the environment changes. We ask what happens when an agent must reconcile a confident memory claim with a contradicting observation, and whether current models can catch the conflict before it becomes a safety-relevant mistake. Using a dynamic FrozenLake testbed, we pair a staleness-detection task with a downstream navigation task across three closed-source models and three open-weight VLMs under both text and image inputs (1,800 detection runs, and 12,000 text-mode navigation episodes over four LLM navigators at a shared 50-seed scale). Three findings emerge. First, text solvability does not imply visual grounding: models that flag stale entries reliably from text nonetheless span vision F1 from 0.887 down to 0.067 on the identical grids, and the weakest keeps making fluent, confident decisions that ignore the image. Second, consuming stale memory without an audit is a safety liability: in our primary GPT-4o setting, an agent that trusts raw memory dies more than twice as often as the same agent given no memory at all. Third, auditing helps but does not close the gap: a transparent read-time filter removes much of the safety cost in text mode, yet even oracle stale labels bring no further significant gain on the current grid size, and when visual auditing is unreliable, filtering yields no consistent benefit. Together these results frame spatial-memory staleness as a safety failure mode and isolate reliable visual grounding and action selection under memory--observation conflict as the central open challenges for memory-augmented agents.

Yushi Sun, Yanjie Zhang

Agent Memory Explicit Visual Grounding Empirical Study

Ask PDF