Skip to content

The Compliance Trap: Diagnosing How AI Agents Consume Conflicting Memory

Jul 2026 · arXiv.org · Vol abs/2607.10608 · 0 citations · 51 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

Enter--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 is proposed, to diagnose how models consume retrieved memory across a multi-step action trajectory.

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.

View source

Similar papers

#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

Closing the Consistency Gap: Self-Evolving Agents That Learn to Stay on Course

Large language model (LLM)-powered agents can be accurate on average yet unreliable in production, a discrepancy that has been observed but remains largely unaddressed. When given the same task five times, a ReAct agent on the AppWorld benchmark using GPT-4.1 succeeds in all five runs only 53% of the time, even though...

Evelyn Duesterwald, Benjamin Elder, Lilian Ngweta et al. · 0 citations
Jul 2026

ConsistencyGate: Preventing Memory Contamination in LLM Agents via Self-Consistency Admission Control

A write-time admission gate that, before committing a candidate fact m extracted from context c, queries the LLM K times for a soft support score and admits m only when the average exceeds a threshold, and reduces to a single forward pass in a log-probability variant for latency-sensitive deployments.

Yan Zhang, Shibo Li · 2 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

Muscle Memory for Agents: Compile not Merely Retrieve

This paper argues that Muscle Memory - the practice of compiling recurring user intent into purpose-built specialist agents - is a distinct memory paradigm from retrieval, and argues that compilation is a better fit for the workloads where current assistants impose a multi-turn tax on their users.

Pouya Ghiasnezhad Omran, Soujanya Lanka, Qin Zhang et al. · 0 citations
#artificial intelligence Preprint Sep 2026

Substrate-Aware AI Agents: Execution Context as a First-Class Input

A minimal execution contract induces proactive structural adaptation in generated programs, shifting computation away from unconstrained allocations and substantially improving observed resource-time profiles before execution, establishing a controlled proof of concept for substrate-aware agent planning.

Manu Agrawal · 0 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

SafeCommit: Certifying When Memory-Grounded Agents May Safely Act

SafeCommit, a risk controlled layer between agent reasoning and external execution, is introduced, a calibrated set of plausible latent worlds from memory, observations, tool outputs, provenance, and policy constraints that permits a side effectful action only when a conformal action certificate shows that the action i...

M. Akewar, Ravi Ranjan · 2 citations
Preprint Aug 2026

TARL: Transaction-Aware Reliable Ledgers for Executable Memory Management in Long-Term Agents

TARL is introduced, a memory state update framework that maps each statement to one of five executable actions and is trained by comparing the memory states produced by alternative update operations, encouraging the model to select the operation that leads to the correct result.

Han Xiao, Hongjun Xu, Xin Zhang et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.