Memory Consolidation Flattens the Temporal Shape of User Facts

Long-term LLM agents must preserve information across interactions while distinguishing repeated evidence, historical states, updates, and unresolved contradictions. Existing textual memory systems retrieve semantically relevant memories efficiently but often leave these relationships implicit, whereas richer structured approaches model them through global graphs, hierarchical abstractions, or reflection at greater complexity. We introduce MemoryLACE (MemLACE), a lightweight memory framework that explicitly models the lifecycle of textual evidence through sparse merge, supersession, and contradiction relations while preserving atomic natural-language memories and their provenance. Rather than retrieving memories independently, MemLACE reconstructs relation-aware evidence units that expose current, historical, supporting, and conflicting evidence for downstream reasoning. Across BEAM and StructMemEval, using open-weight and proprietary LLM backbones, MemLACE achieves the highest overall performance in same-backbone comparisons while reducing end-to-end runtime on BEAM by 66.6% relative to Hindsight, the strongest reported reflective-memory baseline. Ablation studies identify lifecycle expansion and temporal awareness as the principal contributors to these gains. Together, the results demonstrate that explicitly modeling the local lifecycle of textual evidence is sufficient to substantially improve long-term memory reasoning without requiring comprehensive knowledge graphs or global reflection.

LLM agents increasingly maintain long-term memory of user facts across sessions. Yet such memory is usually evaluated by aggregating accuracy over question rows or episodes. Because this approach scores question rows independently, even when several questions probe the same fact, it cannot show how that fact behaves as conditions change. We introduce MemTrace, a benchmark whose unit of measurement is the knowledge point: a single typed fact about the user, rather than an individual question. MemTrace probes each fact along three controlled dimensions: memory age, defined by how many sessions ago the fact appeared in the history; question type, covering current state, earlier state, and trajectory of change; and evidence condition, covering present, missing, and contradicted-by-false-premise settings. Evaluating 13 memory-system configurations across four paradigms, we find that similar pooled accuracy hides different failures: recovering a fact's current and earlier states does not imply tracking how it changed, and safe abstention does not imply correcting a false premise. The dominant bottleneck is evidence use, not retrieval: when systems fail, the evidence was retrievable 10 times more often than it was missing. These results suggest that improving long-term memory requires better use of reachable evidence, not simply more storage or retrieval.

Agent memory systems compress what they store, and compression is built to drop qualifiers, so a claim's epistemic standing tends not to survive being written to memory. We ask what governs whether it does. Matched notes carry the identical claim and identical stance and differ only in where that stance sits; one model compresses both under the same budget among the same filler notes, and a blind reader that never sees the condition scores the result. Across 60 claims in seven registers, writing the stance as a labelled field rather than a bracketed aside raises retention by about 15 points on two models (37 claims to 2 on one, 30 to 8 on the other; permutation p=0.00005), and a pre-registered replication on Haiku, its prediction and decision rule committed before the run, gives +15.6 points, 38 claims to 1. Ablating the format on both models gives the same net effect from different parts: labels help on both (+9.7 and +12.8) and length helps on neither, but wording the stance as a full sentence is the largest component on one model (+12.5) and worth nothing on the other (+0.6). Either model alone would have licensed a confident and different mechanism, so we claim only the intersection: make the stance explicit, not merely longer, and expect the best way of being explicit to depend on the model. A deterministic readout with no model reproduces the two-cell direction and five of seven ablation contrasts, but not length or labels, which we therefore do not claim on one instrument. Fifty hand labels (kappa=0.75) agree on direction; we print their seven disagreements in full. We also report nine withdrawn claims, three of them former title claims of this paper.