cs.AISep 1, 2026

The Memory Trust Gap: Capability-Dependent Failures in Persistent-Memory Agents

Authors: Jundong Hu, Shekar Ramachandran

Abstract

Persistent memory supports personalized agents, but a stale stored fact can override current authoritative evidence without warning. We study when this harm begins as model capability changes. We evaluate a frozen, closed-set, action-scored benchmark with 2 suites that represent 2 different meanings of "no memory" (a Benefit suite, unsolvable without the stored fact, and a Safety suite, in which an authoritative tool always holds the correct value), on a same-family model-size series (Qwen3 0.6/1.7/4/8B). The Memory Trust Gap reflects over-trust rather than confusion. In the Benefit suite, models answer with the stale value 0.92-1.00 of the time at every scale. In the Safety suite, harm below the no-memory baseline under the trap conditions (ΔmemΔ_{\mathrm{mem}}) is capability-gated, with the larger models collapsing most once a stale note is made to look current. In a 2×2×2×22\times2\times2\times2 factorial, which feature triggers over-trust depends on both the feature and model scale. Removing a label amplifies over-trust at every size, and a recency feature (stale dated newer) fools the larger models harder. Source authority is weak and scale-flat, and position changes from positive to negative across the Qwen3 model-size series. We confirm these scale interactions with direct cross-size contrast tests rather than overlapping per-model intervals. Mitigation is likewise capability-dependent: exposing metadata improves accuracy for the capable models, but only pre-resolving the conflict restores accuracy for the 2 smaller checkpoints. The same pattern appears on the capable models in an independent Llama-Instruct model-size series and on 2 external datasets (RGB, MisBench). A framing control finds no consistent advantage for the memory label: at the 3 smaller scales, models trust a stale document more than a stale memory; at 8B, the difference is not significant.

Explore similar work

CardsList
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STALE: Can LLM Agents Know When Their Memories Are No Longer Valid?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 MemoryGradient StalenessLarge Language Model Agents
AskPDF
Jun 23, 2026cs.AI

TRUSTMEM: Learning Trustworthy Memory Consolidation for LLM Agents with Long-Term Memory

Large language model (LLM) agents rely on long-term memory to support extended interactions and personalized assistance beyond finite context windows. Existing memory agents actively update external memory through generated write, revise, and delete operations, but these updates may omit important information, corrupt existing memory, or introduce unsupported hallucinated content. Once stored, such errors become persistent system-state failures that can affect future reasoning and generation. In this paper, we propose TrustMem, a framework designed to improve the trustworthiness of memory consolidation. TrustMem relies on a Memory Transition Verifier to evaluate the transition process of memory updates in terms of coverage, preservation, and faithfulness. It further constructs preference pairs among candidate updates under the same memory state, enabling preference-guided reinforcement learning to directly optimize memory updating behaviors. Extensive experiments demonstrate that TrustMem improves both memory utility and reliability: it achieves state-of-the-art results across MemoryAgentBench, HaluMem, and the Mem-alpha validation set, improves HaluMem memory extraction by 12.14 F1 points, and reduces transition-level omission, corruption, and hallucination by 40.1%, 79.1%, and 50.0%, respectively, compared with the strongest baseline for each error type.
Tianyu Yang, Sudipta Paul, Vijay Srinivasan +2
Agent MemoryLarge Language Model AgentsMemoryagentbench
AskPDF
May 12, 2026cs.CR

The Misattribution Gap: When Memory Poisoning Looks Like Model Failure in Agentic AI Systems

Multi-agent AI pipelines typically assume that agent misconduct originates from model misalignment. We identify a structural failure in this assumption, the \emph{Misattribution Gap}, where memory-layer attacks produce behaviors indistinguishable from model failure, causing defenders to apply the wrong remediation. We formalize \emph{Semantic Norm Drift} (SND) as a third path to agent misconduct, distinct from emergent misalignment and collusion. In SND, a policy-formatted document enters a shared vector store through normal uploads and later reappears as trusted system context after provenance is lost through a Trust Laundering Chain. Across 64 documented failures, attribution systems consistently blamed the model. Four safety classifiers, including one trained on memory poisoning, produced zero detections across 510 checkpoints. In 59 of 65 valid cases, agents explicitly cited the injected document as normative authority before complying. The attack requires no trigger, model access, or repeated interaction, achieves full effect within five sessions, and persists indefinitely. We introduce Counterfactual Composition Testing, which identifies the causal entry with 87.5% accuracy and zero false positives, while a forensics baseline fails across all 25 scenarios. We further prove the Retrieval-Coverage Dilemma, showing that stronger evasion inherently weakens the attack, limiting adaptive bypass strategies. Finally, we propose Memory-Persistent Information-Flow Control, which blocks 97% of attacks at the cross-session boundary where prior defenses fail. We release the SND Corpus, the first adversarial memory benchmark with temporal persistence and multi-agent composition across financial and Health Care domains.
Tanzim Ahad, Ismail Hossain, Md Jahangir Alam +3
Step-Level Failure AttributionData PoisoningAgent MemoryFailure Modes
AskPDF