analiza aiqbench
This paper argues that downstream QA accuracy is a flawed proxy for agent memory quality, since it mixes memory errors with retrieval and generation errors. Its FEB-30 benchmark tests memory directly by inspecting the store after each ingestion step, and it reports that one memory system classifies memory operations correctly only 20% of the time, a failure that QA scores hide. For readers building or evaluating agents, the key point is that a high QA score doesn't show the memory is working, and the released benchmark and scoring framework give a way to check.
Beyond Downstream QA: Rethinking How We Evaluate Agent Memory
arXiv:2610.22209v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agent memory benchmarks evaluate whether an agent's responses reflect correct knowledge, measuring downstream question-answering accuracy as a proxy for memory quality. We show this evaluation paradigm is incomplete: it conflates memory correctness with retrieval and generation quality, producing both false positives where correct responses mask broken memory and false negatives where incorrect responses blame correct memory for retrieval failures. We introduce FEB-30, a benchmark of 30 fact-evolution trajectories spanning 6 diagnostic categories and 3 difficulty levels, constructed via paradigm inversion: documents are generated from known fact trajectories, yielding deterministic ground truth without human annotation. Each trajectory defines how a fact should evolve across multi-author artifacts (documents, emails, conversations), enabling direct inspection of the memory store after each ingestion step. Applying FEB-30 to a representative memory system, we demonstrate that intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation diverge by an average of 16 percentage points, with 44% of trajectories exceeding meaningful divergence thresholds. Diagnostic decomposition reveals that the system correctly classifies memory operations (create, update, reinforce, supersede) only 20% of the time, a failure entirely invisible to extrinsic evaluation, and that failure modes differ systematically by category and difficulty. We release the benchmark, document generation pipeline, and scoring framework to support reproducible evaluation of agent memory systems.
Abstract:Agent memory benchmarks evaluate whether an agent's responses reflect correct knowledge, measuring downstream question-answering accuracy as a proxy for memory quality. We show this evaluation paradigm is incomplete: it conflates memory correctness with retrieval and generation quality, producing both false positives where correct responses mask broken memory and false negatives where incorrect responses blame correct memory for retrieval failures. We introduce FEB-30, a benchmark of 30 fact-evolution trajectories spanning 6 diagnostic categories and 3 difficulty levels, constructed via paradigm inversion: documents are generated from known fact trajectories, yielding deterministic ground truth without human annotation. Each trajectory defines how a fact should evolve across multi-author artifacts (documents, emails, conversations), enabling direct inspection of the memory store after each ingestion step. Applying FEB-30 to a representative memory system, we demonstrate that intrinsic and extrinsic evaluation diverge by an average of 16 percentage points, with 44% of trajectories exceeding meaningful divergence thresholds. Diagnostic decomposition reveals that the system correctly classifies memory operations (create, update, reinforce, supersede) only 20% of the time, a failure entirely invisible to extrinsic evaluation, and that failure modes differ systematically by category and difficulty. We release the benchmark, document generation pipeline, and scoring framework to support reproducible evaluation of agent memory systems.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.22209 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.22209v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.22209 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 304 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

[AINews] Opus 5.5 is good at explainer videos
Latent Space · 29 sept. 2026

[AINews] The Future of Latent Space
Latent Space · 25 sept. 2026

Projection sampling preserves capabilities but diminishes gains from alignment fine-tuning
LessWrong · 16 oct. 2026
[AINews] AI Engineer NYC: Gemini 4 Argon, Vals AI Benchmarks
Latent Space · 14 oct. 2026