Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.36308

When Retrieval Is Not Enough: Obsolete Facts in Agent Memory

Abstract

Memory-agent benchmarks often collapse retrieval and answer generation into one score, making it hard to tell whether a failure comes from missing an update or from not using an update that was already retrieved. We examine this distinction on the single-hop FactConsolidation task of MemoryAgentBench. With Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct on 6K-history BM25 accuracy drops from 45% to 32% when the retrieved evidence budget grows from 64 to 512 tokens, even though a gold-assisted post-hoc audit finds the newest statement in every retrieved set. Most of the errors occur on questions that also contain an obsolete statement version. Under a frozen prompt and equal four-statement evidence size, replacing one unrelated statement with the obsolete competing statement reduces accuracy from 100% to 44.6% for Qwen2.5 and from 100% to 87.8% for Qwen3-14B, with all 50 harmful paired flips classified as stale. A 32K-history replication likewise favors BM25-64 over BM25-512 (69% versus 58%). These results suggest that retrieving the correct fact is not enough. An obsolete competing statement can be more harmful than an unrelated piece of evidence of the same size.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Oleeviya Babu Poikarayil, Tony Basil Babu, Abdulrahman Nahhas, Het Darshan Mehta, Jawid Ahmad Baktash, Ernesto William De Luca, Klaus Turowski. 2026-10-26. When Retrieval Is Not Enough: Obsolete Facts in Agent Memory. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.36308

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Epsilon-Identifiability of Causal Quantities

Identifying the effects of causes and causes of effects is vital in virtually every scientific field. Often, however, the needed probabilities may not be fully identifiable from the available data sources. This paper shows how approximate identifiability is still possible for several probabilities of causation. We term this epsilon-identifiability and demonstrate its usefulness in cases where the behavior of certain subpopulations can be restricted within sufficiently narrow bounds. In particular, we show how unidentifiable causal effects and counterfactual probabilities can be epsilon-identified when such allowances are made. Often, these allowances are easily measured and reasonably assumed. Finally, epsilon-identifiability is applied to the unit selection problem.

cs.AI↗

PIVOT: Bridging Planning and Execution in LLM Agents via Trajectory Refinement

Large language model (LLM)-based agents frequently generate seemingly coherent plans that fail upon execution due to infeasible actions, constraint violations, and compounding errors over extended horizons. PIVOT (Plan-Inspect-eVOlve Trajectories) addresses this plan-execution misalignment through a self-supervised framework that treats trajectories as optimizable objects iteratively refined via environment interaction. The framework comprises four stages: PLAN generates candidate trajectories; INSPECT executes them and computes structured losses with textual gradients encoding plan-execution discrepancies; EVOLVE applies these signals to produce improved trajectories; and VERIFY performs a final global check against task constraints. A monotonic acceptance process ensures a non-decreasing solution quality. Empirical evaluations on DeepPlanning and GAIA demonstrate state-of-the-art performance: with human-in-the-loop (HITL) feedback, PIVOT establishes a strong upper bound up to 94% relative improvement in constraint satisfaction, while its fully autonomous variant retains substantial gains, showing that the core trajectory-refinement mechanism remains effective without external supervision. At the same time, PIVOT remains computationally efficient, requiring up to 3x to 5x fewer tokens than competing refinement methods. These findings establish that (self- or human-supervised) feedback-based trajectory optimization is a principled methodology for mitigating plan-execution gaps in autonomous agent systems.

cs.AI↗

Hedge-Bench: Benchmarking Agents on Hard, Realistic Tasks Pertaining to Financial Reasoning

Modern AI agents are increasingly capable of routine financial-analysis tasks such as retrieving documents and updating spreadsheets. A harder challenge is forecasting an unknown future from incomplete information. Public markets provide a natural testbed: analysts routinely predict discrete events with information from that point in time. We present Hedge-Bench, a benchmark of 92 real-world environments derived from hedge fund analysts' reasoning traces paired with subsequently resolved prediction questions. Agents reason from frozen information snapshots, and their forecasts are evaluated against real-world outcomes. Across 11 frontier models and three trials per environment, joint success rates, which require both a correct forecast and over 60% research coverage, range from 2.54 to 31.52%. Using GRPO with turn-level credit assignment, we train Muse-Glimmer on 165 environments, increasing coverage on 22 held-out environments from 17.17% to 33.36% at low reasoning effort and from 30.19% to 47.02% at extra-high effort. The trained model at low effort also exceeds the base model's extra-high-effort coverage while using 47.9% fewer tokens. We also observe evidence of generalization: held-out forecasting accuracy at high effort improves by 10.06 percentage points, while out-of-distribution evaluation scores improve by 3.94 points on GDPval, 2.29 on GDP.pdf, 7.07 on Harvey LAB, and 4.96 on Frontier Finance under their respective metrics. Code: https://github.com/Trata-Inc/trata-hedge-bench-verified.

cs.AI↗