Caching for the Future: Scrub Jay Episodic Memory Principles for Agent Memory Systems

Learning from past experience benefits from two complementary forms of memory: episodic traces -- raw trajectories of what happened -- and consolidated abstractions distilled across many episodes into reusable, schema-like lessons. Recent agentic-memory systems pursue the consolidated form: an LLM rewrites past trajectories into a textual memory bank that it continuously updates with new interactions, promising self-improving agents without parameter updates. Yet we find that such consolidated memories produced by today's LLMs are often faulty even when derived from useful experiences. As consolidation proceeds, memory utility first rises, then degrades, and can fall below the no-memory baseline. More surprisingly, even when consolidating from ground-truth solutions, GPT-5.4 fails on 54% of a set of ARC-AGI problems it had previously solved without memory. We trace the regression to the consolidation step rather than the underlying experience: the same trajectories yield qualitatively different memories under different update schedules, and an episodic-only control that simply retains those trajectories remains competitive with the consolidators we test. In a controlled ARC-AGI Stream environment that exposes Retain, Delete, and Consolidate actions, agents preserve raw episodes by default and double the accuracy of their forced-consolidation counterparts; disabling consolidation entirely (episodic management only) matches this auto regime. Practically, robust agent memory should treat raw episodes as first-class evidence and gate consolidation explicitly rather than firing it after every interaction. Looking forward, reliable agentic memory will require LLMs that can consolidate without overwriting the evidence they depend on.

LLM-based agents increasingly operate in persistent environments where they must store, update, and reason over information across many sessions. While prior benchmarks evaluate only single-entity updates, MEME defines six tasks spanning the full space defined by the multi-entity and evolving axes, including three not scored by prior work: Cascade and Absence (dependency reasoning) and Deletion (post-removal state). Evaluating six memory systems spanning three memory paradigms on 100 controlled episodes, we find that all systems collapse on dependency reasoning under the default configuration (Cascade: 3%, Absence: 1% in average accuracy) despite adequate static retrieval performance. Prompt optimization, deeper retrieval, reduced filler noise, and most stronger LLMs fail to close this gap. Only a file-based agent paired with Claude Opus 4.7 as its internal LLM partially closes the gap, but at ~70x the baseline cost, indicating closure currently depends on configurations that are not practical at scale. Code and data are available on the project page: https://seokwonjung-jay.github.io/meme-eval/.

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.