aiqbench analysis
This research addresses a critical bottleneck in language agent deployment by formalizing how memory management strategies must adapt to inference cost budgets. The study demonstrates that consolidation techniques significantly outperform raw retention under tight token limits, while pure retention remains optimal when budget constraints are loose. By introducing the Offline Abstraction-Safety framework, this work provides actionable guidelines for optimizing context usage without sacrificing critical evidence quality.
Retain or Consolidate? Budget-Dependent Operator Selection for Language Agent Memory
arXiv:2607.17545v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Language agents depend on memory across interactions. However, the limited context windows of large language models (LLMs) and their inference costs constrain how much memory can be used at once. Existing systems mainly follow two strategies: memory retention and memory consolidation. Retention keeps raw records and preserves exact details, but relevant evidence may not fit under a tight budget; consolidation compresses and combines records, improving coverage per token but risking the loss of query-critical details. Neither strategy is universally preferable. This raises two central questions: when should consolidation replace retention, and which operator -- Merge, Abstract, or Rewrite -- should be selected? We formalize this decision by decomposing each operator's utility into a coverage effect on evidence omitted by retention and a signed replacement effect on raw evidence that already fits. Their balance explains why the preferred action changes with relative budget pressure. We implement this mechanism with Offline Abstraction-Safety (OAS), a lightweight learner that estimates action utilities from pre-generation features with held-out harm calibration. The public LongMemEval and LoCoMo benchmarks show the same budget-dependent pattern. On LongMemEval, consolidation improves absolute accuracy by up to 48% under tight budgets, whereas retention is preferable under loose budgets; LoCoMo replicates this crossover at a smaller budget, consistent with its shorter evidence. On both datasets, cross-note abstraction and merging generally outperform local rewriting when compression is necessary.
Title:Retain or Consolidate? Budget-Dependent Operator Selection for Language Agent Memory
Abstract:Language agents depend on memory across interactions. However, the limited context windows of large language models (LLMs) and their inference costs constrain how much memory can be used at once. Existing systems mainly follow two strategies: memory retention and memory consolidation. Retention keeps raw records and preserves exact details, but relevant evidence may not fit under a tight budget; consolidation compresses and combines records, improving coverage per token but risking the loss of query-critical details. Neither strategy is universally preferable. This raises two central questions: when should consolidation replace retention, and which operator -- Merge, Abstract, or Rewrite -- should be selected? We formalize this decision by decomposing each operator's utility into a coverage effect on evidence omitted by retention and a signed replacement effect on raw evidence that already fits. Their balance explains why the preferred action changes with relative budget pressure. We implement this mechanism with Offline Abstraction-Safety (OAS), a lightweight learner that estimates action utilities from pre-generation features with held-out harm calibration. The public LongMemEval and LoCoMo benchmarks show the same budget-dependent pattern. On LongMemEval, consolidation improves absolute accuracy by up to 48% under tight budgets, whereas retention is preferable under loose budgets; LoCoMo replicates this crossover at a smaller budget, consistent with its shorter evidence. On both datasets, cross-note abstraction and merging generally outperform local rewriting when compression is necessary.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.17545 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2607.17545v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.17545 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 328 words
Related coverage

A Candid Abacus AI Review: The All-in-One AI Platform for Professionals & Enterprises
KDnuggets · Sep 10, 2026

How Postman runs Agent Mode for 40 million developers on Amazon Bedrock
AWS · Oct 9, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 18, 2026
A Red Line and Oversight Framework for Government AI Contracts
AI Alignment Forum · Jul 18, 2026