Agent memory benchmarks evaluate whether an agent's responses reflect correct knowledge, measuring downstream question-answering accuracy as a proxy for memory quality. We show this evaluation paradigm is incomplete: it conflates memory correctness with retrieval and generation quality, producing both false positives where correct responses mask broken memory and false negatives where incorrect responses blame correct memory for retrieval failures. We introduce FEB-30, a benchmark of 30 fact-evolution trajectories spanning 6 diagnostic categories and 3 difficulty levels, constructed via paradigm inversion: documents are generated from known fact trajectories, yielding deterministic ground truth without human annotation. Each trajectory defines how a fact should evolve across multi-author artifacts (documents, emails, conversations), enabling direct inspection of the memory store after each ingestion step. Applying FEB-30 to a representative memory system, we demonstrate that intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation diverge by an average of 16 percentage points, with 44% of trajectories exceeding meaningful divergence thresholds. Diagnostic decomposition reveals that the system correctly classifies memory operations (create, update, reinforce, supersede) only 20% of the time, a failure entirely invisible to extrinsic evaluation, and that failure modes differ systematically by category and difficulty. We release the benchmark, document generation pipeline, and scoring framework to support reproducible evaluation of agent memory systems.
Figures & tables
Cat
Name
Design constraint
C1
LLM Compensation
Memory wrong in a way QA still works
C2
Retrieval Bottleneck
Memory correct but hard to retrieve
C3
Classification
Focus on create/update/reinforce/conflict decision correctness
C4
Synthesis Quality
Multi-observation → correct fact formation
C5
Temporal Correctness
Fact must evolve correctly over time
C6
Multi-Author
Artifacts from different author roles
Table 1: FEB-30 diagnostic categories with design constraints. C1 and C2 are designed to produce intrinsic-extrinsic divergence; C3–C6 test dimensions where intrinsic evaluation provides richer signal than extrinsic.
Level
Docs
States
Signal clarity
L1
1–2
2–3
Claims nearly explicit
L2
3–4
3–4
Claims embedded in context
L3
4–5
4–5
Requires inference
Table 2: Difficulty levels in FEB-30.
Figure 1: System architecture showing the write path (ingestion and fact synthesis), intrinsic and extrinsic scoring pipelines. For each trajectory state si , intrinsic evaluation compares ground-truth claims Ci against the fact store via embedding retrieval and LLM entailment. Extrinsic evaluation queries the store and judges the response against expected answers. ⋆ = proposed here.
Category
Intr. (%)
Extr. (%)
MAD
DivRate (%)
C1: LLM Comp.
82.2 ± 2.9
54.5 ± 10.8
.295 ± .084
67.3
C2: Retrieval
60.3 ± 4.7
50.9 ± 2.9
.135 ± .034
45.5
C3: Classif.
70.8 ± 8.2
48.9 ± 16.4
.258 ± .117
54.5
C4: Synthesis
52.8 ± 3.1
49.2 ± 2.4
.104 ± .036
21.2
C5: Temporal
59.3 ± 5.2
47.3 ± 4.5
.144 ± .062
45.5
C6: Multi-Auth.
41.5 ± 4.8
41.8 ± 5.7
.106 ± .049
34.5
Table 3: Intrinsic (fact accuracy %) and extrinsic (QA accuracy %) scores by category (left) and difficulty (right), averaged across N=11 runs ( ± std). MAD = mean absolute divergence between intrinsic and extrinsic per trajectory. DivRate = percentage with divergence >τ=0.15 . C1 shows highest MAD (.295): memory quality is systematically better than what QA evaluation reveals. Per-trajectory scores are in Appendix I .
Category
Miss (%)
Fact Count
ClassAcc (%)
C1: LLM Comp.
54.0 ± 4.5
13.6 ± 1.0
41.7 ± 2.8
C2: Retrieval
74.5 ± 4.2
20.8 ± 1.3
4.5 ± 5.7
C3: Classif.
60.5 ± 7.9
14.8 ± 1.4
30.7 ± 12.3
C4: Synthesis
72.2 ± 2.6
14.9 ± 1.0
17.4 ± 2.4
C5: Temporal
68.0 ± 5.3
21.0 ± 1.0
0.4 ± 1.1
C6: Multi-Auth.
87.5 ± 3.5
12.0 ± 0.8
28.8 ± 7.3
Table 4: Diagnostic decomposition by category (left) and difficulty (right), averaged across N=11 runs ( ± std). Miss Rate = percentage of expected claims not found in the fact store. Fact Count = average active facts per trajectory (lower indicates better synthesis). ClassAcc = action classification accuracy. C6 shows highest miss rate (88%); fact count inflates from 9.6 at L1 to 22.4 at L3.
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
si
Action
Expected claims Ci (cumulative)
0
create
“PostgreSQL 14 on-premise in Frankfurt”; “3 TB database”
Table 6: State evolution for c4-out-of-order. Note s1 timestamp is older than s0 .
Component
Model
Temp.
System under test
Observation extraction
Frontier LLM
0
Fact synthesis
Frontier LLM
0
Embedding
Titan Embeddings V2 (1024-dim)
–
Retrieval
BM25 (0.3) + k-NN (0.7)
–
Evaluation scorer
Appendix
Table 7: All models used in the system and evaluation pipeline.
State
All (%)
L1 (%)
L2 (%)
L3 (%)
s0 (n=330)
64.7 ± 28.8
67.5 ± 24.4
76.4 ± 22.1
50.2 ± 32.4
s1 (n=330)
65.3 ± 22.1
72.7 ± 23.6
70.3 ± 20.3
52.9 ± 16.0
s2 (n=319)
58.2 ± 20.8
68.2 ± 23.0
60.6 ± 17.9
46.1 ± 13.4
s3 (n=242)
57.8 ± 18.8
62.3 ± 27.1
68.4 ± 14.8
48.2 ± 8.6
s4 (n=110)
49.7 ± 11.4
–
57.3 ± 10.9
47.8 ± 10.7
s5 (n=44)
50.8 ± 10.8
–
–
50.8 ± 10.8
Appendix
Table 8: Claim coverage (%) by state index, averaged across all trajectories and N=11 runs. n = number of trajectory × run pairs that reach this state (not all trajectories have the same number of states). Coverage decreases at later states as the system must retain earlier claims while integrating new information. L3 trajectories start lower and degrade further.
Category
UDR (%)
FUR (%)
Conf. MAE
C1: LLM Comp.
51.4 ± 6.0
39.4 ± 1.9
0.105 ± 0.005
C2: Retrieval
94.8 ± 4.3
0.0 ± 0.0
0.092 ± 0.009
C3: Classif.
70.5 ± 9.6
45.5 ± 6.0
0.117 ± 0.007
C4: Synthesis
81.4 ± 3.3
15.7 ± 2.1
0.097 ± 0.006
C5: Temporal
90.6 ± 2.2
0.0 ± 0.0
0.108 ± 0.007
C6: Multi-Auth.
50.8 ± 7.4
38.6 ± 3.1
0.124 ± 0.005
Appendix
Table 9: Update detection recall (UDR), false update rate (FUR), and confidence MAE per category and difficulty, averaged across N=11 runs ( ± std across runs). C2 and C5 never produce false updates but C1 and C6 frequently misclassify reinforcements as updates. Confidence calibration is worst for C6 (multi-author) and best for C4 (synthesis). FUR decreases with difficulty because at L3 the system rarely modifies facts.
Comparison
Pearson r
p -value
Miss rate vs. Intrinsic accuracy
−0.841
5.9×10−9
Miss rate vs. Extrinsic accuracy
−0.391
3.2×10−2
Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic accuracy
+0.552
1.6×10−3
Appendix
Table 10: Pearson correlations across 30 trajectories. Miss rate strongly predicts intrinsic accuracy ( r=−0.84 ) but weakly predicts extrinsic accuracy ( r=−0.39 ), confirming that intrinsic metrics capture signal that extrinsic evaluation misses. The moderate intrinsic-extrinsic correlation ( r=0.55 ) indicates the two methods share some signal but measure substantially different properties.
Category
Signed Div.
Interpretation
C1: LLM Comp.
+0.276±0.260
Memory much better than QA reveals
C2: Retrieval
+0.094±0.137
Memory slightly better
C3: Classif.
+0.220±0.276
Memory much better than QA reveals
C4: Synthesis
+0.036±0.173
Nearly neutral
C5: Temporal
+0.120±0.160
Memory moderately better
C6: Multi-Auth.
−0.003±0.158
No directional bias
Appendix
Table 11: Signed divergence (intrinsic − extrinsic) per category. C1 shows strong positive bias by design: memory is correct but QA underestimates. C6 shows no directional bias: both metrics are equally poor at capturing multi-author attribution.
Metric
Simpler sys.
Main sys.
Main (released)
Upgraded backbone
Intrinsic (%)
57.6±1.8
61.1±1.6
60.6±1.6
61.4±1.3
Extrinsic (%)
48.8±2.7
48.5±2.1
48.8±2.9
49.2±3.4
MAD
0.164±0.027
0.181±0.022
0.168±0.025
0.158±0.035
DivRate (%)
43.3±6.0
49.4±7.2
43.6±6.1
39.7±6.1
Signed divergence
+0.088±0.034
+0.126±0.025
+0.118±0.029
+0.121±0.036
Cohen’s κ
0.104
0.082
0.118
0.035
Appendix
Table 12: Headline statistics across the four configurations of Finding 5, each averaged over N=11 runs. Main (released) is the configuration used for all other results in this paper. Positive signed divergence and near-chance κ persist in every configuration.
Trajectory
Cat
Diff
Intr. (%)
Extr. (%)
MAD
Miss (%)
FC
CA (%)
Dir
c1-confidence-001
C1
L1
100.0 ± 0.0
95.5 ± 14.4
.045
11 ± 21
6.4 ± 4.8
100 ± 0
=
c1-duplicate-facts-001
C1
L1
100.0 ± 0.0
50.0 ± 0.0
.500
17 ± 5
8.0 ± 3.7
100 ± 0
↑
c1-stale-state-001
C1
L2
83.3 ± 12.3
45.5 ± 33.4
.470
69 ± 9
14.5 ± 8.2
0 ± 0
↑
c1-wrong-provenance-001
C1
L2
79.1 ± 5.1
45.5 ± 14.4
.336
34 ± 14
21.3 ± 5.0
6 ± 13
↑
c1-unresolved-conflict-001
C1
L3
48.5 ± 4.8
36.4 ± 22.3
.121
99 ± 4
15.8 ± 5.0
2 ± 7
↑
c2-phrasing-mismatch-001
C2
L1
76.1 ± 3.6
50.0 ± 0.0
.261
31 ± 3
10.6 ± 5.0
0 ± 0
↑
Appendix
Table 13: Per-trajectory results averaged across N=11 runs ( ± std). MAD = mean absolute divergence between intrinsic and extrinsic for that trajectory. Miss = claim miss rate (%, complement of claim coverage Eq. 1 in the main paper, computed across all claims in all states). FC = average fact count. CA = classification accuracy (%). Dir = direction of divergence: ↑ = intrinsic > extrinsic (memory underestimated), ↓ = extrinsic > intrinsic (LLM compensates), = = gap < 5 points.
Agents today often take real-world actions that depend on long-term memory and context recall over time. However, most current memory benchmarks are built for a conversational question-answer format, where the question itself signals that some fact must be retrieved, and often which one. Moreover, benchmarks rarely require anything beyond accuracy from submissions, allowing memory systems to make unreasonable cost/time tradeoffs to achieve higher scores. We present DolphinBench, a benchmark that evaluates memory directly through an agent's task completion. DolphinBench includes three knowledge-work personas with roughly 500k tokens of user messages per persona and evaluates agents on tasks that depend on information from that history. We verify all 200 tasks per persona by running an agent with and without the relevant history, requiring success with it and failure without it. Finally, we require all evaluations to report total cost and latency alongside accuracy, which enables us to evaluate agent memory systems holistically. No existing memory benchmark combines all three. The dataset and evaluation code are available at https://dolphinbench.ai.
Memory has emerged as a cornerstone of modern LLM-based agents, supporting their evolution from single-turn assistants to long-term collaborators. However, memory is not always beneficial: retrieved memories often induce a critical issue of sycophancy, causing agents to over-align with the user at the cost of factual accuracy or objective reasoning. Despite this emerging risk, existing memory benchmarks primarily evaluate whether memories are correctly stored, retrieved, or updated, while overlooking how retrieved memories influence downstream reasoning and decision-making. To bridge this gap, we propose MemSyco-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating memory-induced sycophancy in agent systems. MemSyco-Bench measures when memory should influence a decision and how valid memory should be used. Specifically, it covers five tasks that assess whether agents can reject memory as factual evidence, respect its applicable scope, resolve conflicts between memory and objective evidence, track memory updates, and use valid memory for personalization. All related resources are collected for the community at https://github.com/XMUDeepLIT/MemSyco-Bench.
Benchmarks for LLM-agent memory typically generate conversations first and extract answer keys afterwards -- with documented label-error and contamination problems -- and they overwhelmingly measure short interaction histories. We invert the pipeline: a seeded life-script sampler emits facts with validity intervals, volatility classes, and source channels before any text exists; an LLM renderer writes chat and email from per-event fact manifests; a fidelity verifier confirms every planted fact; and questions are instantiated mechanically from the script, so gold answers are script-valid by construction and separately validated for answerability. The synthetic, fictionalized corpus (~380 questions, 15 types) embeds features absent from the benchmarks we survey: per-fact validity intervals, sent/received trust distinctions, injection probes in a benign harness, and as-of-date question sets. Benchmarking five memory architectures against a no-memory control (fixed answerer, versioned LLM judge, three replicates, two horizons), we find backend rankings invert with history length: the budgeted curated-map memory that leads at three weeks loses recall of evicted content by nine weeks (96% to 72%) while a provenance-typed graph rises to 90%; the inversion is positive for all six users under complete cross-family re-judging (exact p=0.031). A full-rendered-history baseline ties or exceeds the best memory system at the short horizon but shows no judge-independent advantage at nine weeks, at about twice the read cost. Write-stage quality strongly correlates with downstream quality (weakly-written facts fail 24% vs 2%), and injection resistance tracked whether provenance boundaries survive representation. A layered architecture performs best among the memory systems in both regimes (96.8% short-horizon) and is released as Veracium, an open-source library, with the corpus generator and harness.