This paper formalizes the mechanics of State Mutability to prove that standard dense retrieval suffers from Asymptotic Recall Decay, and formally demonstrate a Majority Vote Trap, revealing that increasing the retrieval context window paradoxically degrades generation accuracy by diluting the attention mechanism under conditions of semantic equivalence.
Abstract
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) serves as the primary memory architecture for long-horizon autonomous agents. However, treating shared memory as an append-only stream introduces \textit{Semantic Shadowing}, a critical failure mode where conflicting historical observations accumulate and statistically dominate valid recent updates. In dynamic environments, this results in severe state divergence as agents retrieve and act upon obsolete facts. This paper formalizes the mechanics of State Mutability to prove that standard dense retrieval suffers from Asymptotic Recall Decay. Furthermore, we formally demonstrate a Majority Vote Trap, revealing that increasing the retrieval context window paradoxically degrades generation accuracy by diluting the attention mechanism under conditions of semantic equivalence. To resolve this, we introduce GC-Mem (Garbage Collection for Memory), a strict inference-time consistency protocol. Unlike heuristic time-decay mechanisms---which indiscriminately destroy valid long-term memory---GC-Mem relies purely on a temporal dominance operator ($\Phi_{\mathcal{T}}$) paired with contradiction detection to surgically excise shadowed context. Evaluated across a rigorous, behaviorally inferred benchmark of 137,760 memory chunks and continuous accumulation sweeps, standard RAG and timestamp re-ranking baselines experience severe degradation. In contrast, GC-Mem empirically recovers $>90\%$ conflict resolution accuracy. We establish strict precision and recall deployment thresholds, ensuring state convergence where standard mutable RAG fundamentally fails.
TRACE is presented, a training-free layer that treats re-entry as an eligibility decision rather than a storage or retrieval operation, reconciling a departure checkpoint against absence-period updates, resolving explicit and implicit invalidation, and releasing a bounded Return View only when it covers the returning r...
Wen-Jun Xiong, Shengtao Zhang, Shangding Gu et al.· 0 citations
Long-horizon memory is essential for Large Language Model (LLM) agents, yet existing memory systems still face four key challenges: context truncation breaks links between related memories, LLM-based memory summarization introduces hallucinations, concept drift is often mistaken for factual contradiction, and manually...
Sheng-Lin Chen, Ya-Xin Liu, Ke-Ran Hou et al.· 2026 6th International Confe...· 0 citations
Long-term-memory agents can retrieve relevant information that is inadmissible for the current request because it belongs to another principal, violates policy, or reflects an incompatible lifecycle state. Recall and final-answer accuracy do not reveal this: a route can appear safe by missing required evidence, while a...
Zi Wang, Xing-Qiao Wang, Emmanuel Addai et al.· 0 citations
Long-running LLM agents are stateful: beyond the transcript they accrete compressed summaries, plaintext memory, pending tool plans, and, under every serving API, a KV cache. Yet today's"forget"operations delete a plaintext memory record and stop, leaving every artifact derived from the revoked information intact. We f...
Chao Yao, Yang-Bo Wei, Zhen Huang et al.· 1 citation
Language-model agents increasingly rely on harnesses that manage bounded context, persistent memory, tools, verification, and repeated execution, yet existing notions of model capability do not quantify the computational resources these mechanisms consume. We introduce the Language Model Agent Machine (LAM), a resource...
Ze-Lin Zhao, Xin-Yu Guo, Jing-Yuan Zhang et al.· 0 citations