The Compliance Trap: Diagnosing How AI Agents Consume Conflicting Memory

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.10608v1
• Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2026 07:05:31 GMT
• Title: The Compliance Trap: Diagnosing How AI Agents Consume Conflicting Memory
• Abstract summary: Memory is becoming a core component of long-horizon AI agents, allowing agents to reuse past experience when operating web browsers, software tools, and other interactive environments.<n>Existing work mostly treats memory as a supply problem, asking what experience to write, how to store it, and which entry to retrieve for the next task.<n>Yet we still lack a clear account of how models consume retrieved memory across a multi-step action trajectory.
• Score: 9.041305193333434
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Memory is becoming a core component of long-horizon AI agents, allowing agents to reuse past experience when operating web browsers, software tools, and other interactive environments. Existing work mostly treats memory as a supply problem, asking what experience to write, how to store it, and which entry to retrieve for the next task. Yet we still lack a clear account of how models consume retrieved memory across a multi-step action trajectory. This consumption process matters because it determines not only what memories should be retrieved, but also what models and control policies are needed to use them safely. To diagnose this process, we propose Entry--Propagation--Recovery (E-P-R), a trajectory-level framework that asks where memory first changes an action, whether that change carries forward, and whether the agent can recover after leaving a correct path. We instantiate E-P-R on WebArena and on MemTrapBench, a controlled benchmark we build to isolate these phases. We find that the main failure often begins at entry: agents adopt conflicting memory at the first exposed decision point even when it is task-wrong. Repeated exposure then amplifies this early error, while recovery after divergence is weak. Together, these effects create a compliance trap: across models, conflicting memory induces similar compliance rates, but once agents comply, their success rates collapse to a low floor. Stronger agents therefore suffer larger absolute damage because each compliance event erases more baseline capability. These results suggest that memory-augmented agents should be evaluated not only by retrieval quality or final success rate, but by how they consume memory throughout the trajectory.

Related papers

• MEMPROBE: Probing Long-Term Agent Memory via Hidden User-State Recovery [58.64329475683699]
  We argue that long-term memory should be evaluated as an auditable post-interaction artifact.<n>We instantiate this view in MEMPROBE, a benchmark in which a memory-equipped agent assists simulated users.<n>We find that successful assistance and recoverable memory behave as distinct capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-23T13:52:46Z)
• Memory is Reconstructed, Not Retrieved: Graph Memory for LLM Agents [51.30250860677378]
  We propose MRAgent, a framework that combines an associative memory graph with an active reconstruction mechanism.<n>Running on a Cue-Tag-Content graph, our active reconstruction mechanism integrates reasoning directly into memory access.<n>Experiments on the LoCoMo benchmark and LongMemEval benchmark demonstrate significant improvements over strong baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-04T11:29:46Z)
• MemAudit: Post-hoc Auditing of Poisoned Agent Memory via Causal Attribution and Structural Anomaly Detection [15.403262505444454]
  We propose a post-hoc causal memory auditing framework for large language model agents.<n>MemAudit substantially reduces attack success rates under realistic post-hoc auditing scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-22T15:03:13Z)
• The Trap of Trajectory: Towards Understanding and Mitigating Spurious Correlations in Agentic Memory [7.707732051915869]
  Diagnosing agentic memory systems reveals that memory improves reasoning on clean inputs but amplifies reliance on spurious patterns when they are present.<n>We propose CAMEL, a plug-and-play calibration method that operates across diverse memory architectures at both write and retrieval time.<n>Overall, CAMEL offers a principled and lightweight solution toward more reliable agentic memory deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-10T05:04:13Z)
• MemEvoBench: Benchmarking Memory MisEvolution in LLM Agents [78.95081012334116]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) with persistent memory enhances interaction continuity and personalization but introduces new safety risks.<n> contaminated or biased memory accumulation can trigger abnormal agent behaviors.<n>MemeEvoBench is the first benchmark evaluating memory safety in LLM agents against adversarial memory injection, noisy tool outputs, and biased feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T07:29:52Z)
• MemMA: Coordinating the Memory Cycle through Multi-Agent Reasoning and In-Situ Self-Evolution [52.29303869050117]
  Memory-augmented LLM agents maintain external memory banks to support long-horizon interaction.<n>MemMA is a plug-and-play multi-agent framework that coordinates the memory cycle along both the forward and backward paths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-19T10:15:59Z)
• MemoryArena: Benchmarking Agent Memory in Interdependent Multi-Session Agentic Tasks [55.145729491377374]
  Existing evaluations of agents with memory typically assess memorization and action in isolation.<n>We introduce MemoryArena, a unified evaluation gym for benchmarking agent memory in multi-session Memory-Agent-Environment loops.<n> MemoryArena supports evaluation across web navigation, preference-constrained planning, progressive information search, and sequential formal reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-18T09:49:14Z)
• ActMem: Bridging the Gap Between Memory Retrieval and Reasoning in LLM Agents [14.695250837875454]
  We propose a novel actionable memory framework called ActMem.<n>ActMem transforms unstructured dialogue history into a structured causal and semantic graph.<n>It enables agents to deduce implicit constraints and resolve potential conflicts between past states and current intentions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T00:54:53Z)
• A-MemGuard: A Proactive Defense Framework for LLM-Based Agent Memory [31.673865459672285]
  Large Language Model (LLM) agents use memory to learn from past interactions.<n>An adversary can inject seemingly harmless records into an agent's memory to manipulate its future behavior.<n>A-MemGuard is the first proactive defense framework for LLM agent memory.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T16:04:15Z)
• How Memory Management Impacts LLM Agents: An Empirical Study of Experience-Following Behavior [65.70584076918679]
  Memory is a critical component in large language model (LLM)-based agents.<n>This paper studies how memory management choices impact the LLM agents' behavior, especially their long-term performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-21T22:35:01Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.