persistent-memory-agents-any-memory-write-rule-decides-using-only-recency
mechanismsingle paperpending review

For persistent-memory agents, any memory-write rule that decides using only recency and provenance is stuck on a single tradeoff — accepting more genuine preference updates means admitting more poisoned ones — because an adversary who can launder a claim through the user's own channel matches the statistics a genuine revision produces; conditioning the write decision on the inferred authenticity of the claim given the interaction history moves both axes at once.

Ingested from a paper but not yet reviewed by a human. It is deliberately inert: it does not move any technique’s standing, does not count toward the backtest, and is excluded anywhere a claim would carry weight. Read the source before relying on it.

Capability: Remembering across sessions

Observed on

Personalized agents with persistent cross-session memory where retrieved documents, shared files, or tool outputs can be written into the user model; holds against a fixed attacker.

Sources

  • Argued as a decision-theoretic lower bound plus measured on 480 held-out synthetic episodes from 96 users: provenance-only 20.0% poisoning / 74.1% adherence, recency RAG 51.6% / 85.7%, proposed gate 11.5% / 83.5%; provenance-only collapses to 43.6% on same- origin contamination vs 17.5%. A supervision-matched Transformer baseline reaches 69.3% win / 15.9% poisoning, so most of the gain is supervised temporal tracking rather than the specific architecture. Benchmark is generated by the authors; [truncated]
Status: pending-reviewLast checked: 2026-09-09Evidence activity: not checked yet
Contest this claim

Disagreeing is the most useful thing you can do here. Both sides of every contested claim in this catalog were assembled by the same person, which is its weakest point.

Related claims

Notes

Drafted from the paper by a model and filed unreviewed. Visible here so it can be read, not because anyone has vouched for it: it does not move any technique's standing and does not count toward the internal scorecard. Drafted confidence: medium. Falsifier as drafted: A memory policy reading only recency and provenance that matches or beats a history-conditioned authenticity gate on both genuine-update adherence and poisoning resistance, including on same-origin (user-pasted) contamination. Proposed technique, not catalogued: Latent-authenticity gate for memory writes.