Do agents need to sleep?

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.

Current LLM agents lack principled mechanisms for managing persistent memory across long interaction horizons. We present a biologically-grounded memory architecture comprising six cognitive mechanisms: (1) sleep-phase consolidation, (2) interference-based forgetting, (3) engram maturation, (4) reconsolidation upon retrieval, (5) entity knowledge graphs, and (6) hybrid multi-cue retrieval. Each mechanism addresses a specific failure mode of naive memory accumulation. We introduce a synthetic calibration methodology that derives all pipeline thresholds without benchmark data exposure, eliminating a common source of evaluation leakage. We evaluate on two benchmarks. First, a VSCode issue-tracking dataset (13K issues, 120K events) where deduplication-based consolidation achieves 97.2% retention precision with 58% store reduction (+21.8 pp over baseline). Second, the LongMemEval personal-chat benchmark where we conduct the first streaming M-tier evaluation (475 sessions, ~540K unique turns). At a 200K-token context budget, our pipeline matches raw retrieval accuracy (70.1% vs. 71.2%, overlapping 95% CI) while exposing a tunable accuracy/store-size operating curve. At S-tier scale (50 sessions), dedup-based consolidation yields a +13.3 pp improvement in preference recall.

Long-horizon LLM agents must convert accumulated experience into durable memory, deciding what to keep, compress, abstract into reusable skills and rules, or forget. We report a four-phase research program on this consolidation problem whose central finding is a shift in what is measured: from how much an agent remembers, to whether its consolidation decisions are any good, to whether those decisions can be trusted. Phase 1 learns episodic boundaries from agent traces by downstream utility; an honest near-miss (oracle correlation 0.691 vs a 0.70 bar) whose lasting output is a three-gate anti-leakage protocol. Phase 2 learns when to promote experience and to which abstraction level under a token budget, achieving a verified +22.7% task-success improvement with 7x compression, but exposing a degenerate-forgetting failure and a distribution-shift failure mode we name lambda-prevalence coupling. Phase 3 introduces ConsolidationBench, an oracle-by-construction benchmark that scores consolidation decisions against a known optimum on three non-circular axes; production retrieval systems retain information yet score zero on cross-level transfer. Phase 4 introduces governed consolidation: the decision wrapped in poison-resistance, reversibility, and auditability guarantees with a quality gate. Governance is statistically distinct from the quality score ($r^2 = 0.43$; partial $r = 0.27$; identical-quality policies differ threefold in governance), so the contribution survives independently of the metric's external validity. On that question we report a resolved negative: after a graded-reuse redesign removed a structural ceiling, a two-benchmark study with 2,532 real answer cells finds the quality score does not predict real transfer accuracy (pooled Spearman $ρ= -0.24$, n = 12, CI spanning zero). An adversarial self-critique pass cleared the final claim set with zero surviving overclaims.