Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research proposes a category-conditioned retention mechanism for agent memory, addressing the reliability asymmetry between factual assertions and subjective value claims. By applying stricter confidence thresholds specifically to value-based categories, the method reduces unsupported retentions while maintaining overall system coverage better than global thresholds. The findings offer a practical approach to mitigating hallucination risks in multi-agent systems by tailoring memory policies to semantic content types.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

When to Remember, When to Abstain: Category-Conditioned Retention for Reliable Agent Memory

arXiv3 min read

arXiv:2610.07100v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Persistent agent memory is only as reliable as its retention decision: an assertion weakly supported by its source can be stored and later reused as established fact. We study whether the retention decision should be governed by a confidence bar conditioned on the semantic category of the assertion rather than by a single global threshold, retaining well-evidenced categories liberally while abstaining more aggressively where inference is unreliable. We evaluate this in a deployed cold-start memory pipeline on 100 synthetic personas. The empirical evaluation is motivated by a sharp reliability asymmetry: across 4{,}715 candidate assertions, only 77.9\% of value and belief assertions are supported by their source, versus 96.2\% for all other categories. A global confidence threshold cannot separate these: it either admits unsupported value claims or discards well-evidenced ones. Conditioning the threshold on category resolves the tradeoff. In repeated held-out evaluation, a stricter bar on values alone reduces unsupported retentions from 6.2\% to 4.0\% (an ${\approx}36\%$ relative reduction, modest but consistent across folds) and, as corroborating evidence, preserves an estimated 13 percentage points more coverage (95\% CI 9.8--16.0) than a global threshold at comparable retention. Our results suggest that reliable retention depends on the type of assertion, not on confidence alone, and that a category-conditioned threshold can act as a simple, effective form of selective prediction at the write boundary.

Abstract:Persistent agent memory is only as reliable as its retention decision: an assertion weakly supported by its source can be stored and later reused as established fact. We study whether the retention decision should be governed by a confidence bar conditioned on the semantic category of the assertion rather than by a single global threshold, retaining well-evidenced categories liberally while abstaining more aggressively where inference is unreliable. We evaluate this in a deployed cold-start memory pipeline on 100 synthetic personas. The empirical evaluation is motivated by a sharp reliability asymmetry: across 4{,}715 candidate assertions, only 77.9\% of value and belief assertions are supported by their source, versus 96.2\% for all other categories. A global confidence threshold cannot separate these: it either admits unsupported value claims or discards well-evidenced ones. Conditioning the threshold on category resolves the tradeoff. In repeated held-out evaluation, a stricter bar on values alone reduces unsupported retentions from 6.2\% to 4.0\% (an ${\approx}36\%$ relative reduction, modest but consistent across folds) and, as corroborating evidence, preserves an estimated 13 percentage points more coverage (95\% CI 9.8--16.0) than a global threshold at comparable retention. Our results suggest that reliable retention depends on the type of assertion, not on confidence alone, and that a category-conditioned threshold can act as a simple, effective form of selective prediction at the write boundary.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA)

arXiv:2610.07100 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2610.07100v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.07100 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 · 317 words

Related coverage