MemEvoBench: Benchmarking Safety Risks from Memory Misevolution in LLM Agents
Abstract
Domain fit: AI-core · Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Equipping Large Language Models (LLMs) with persistent memory enhances interaction continuity and personalization but introduces new safety risks. Specifically, contaminated or biased memory accumulation can trigger abnormal agent behaviors. Existing evaluation methods have not yet established a standardized framework for measuring memory misevolution. This phenomenon refers to the gradual behavioral drift resulting from repeated exposure to misleading information. To address this gap, we introduce MemEvoBench, the first benchmark evaluating long-horizon memory safety in LLM agents against adversarial memory injection, noisy tool outputs, and biased feedback. The framework consists of QA-style tasks across 7 domains and 36 risk types, complemented by workflow-style tasks adapted from 20 Agent-SafetyBench environments with noisy tool returns. Both settings employ mixed benign and misleading memory pools within multi-round interactions to simulate memory evolution. Experiments on representative models reveal substantial safety degradation under biased memory updates. Our analysis suggests that memory evolution is a significant contributor to these failures. Furthermore, static prompt-based defenses prove insufficient, underscoring the urgency of securing memory evolution in LLM agents.
Results and benchmarks
Equipping Large Language Models (LLMs) with persistent memory enhances interaction continuity and personalization but introduces new safety risks.
Benchmark evidence is limited
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation
No direct implementation yet
Maintained implementation evidence is not confirmed for this paper yet.
Use the implementation status and reproduction sections for the current action plan.
No verified maintained repo yet
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
- No direct maintained implementation was found. Use the paper PDF and citation graph to design a baseline reproduction.
- Track assumptions and missing details in an experiment log before coding.
Time to first repro: a few days
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Compare implementation paths
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
- Maintenance
- Recently updated
- Confidence
- Low
- Reproducibility
- Limited
- Stars
- 1
- Last push
- Sep 6, 2026 (53d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
- Maintenance
- Recently updated
- Confidence
- Low
- Reproducibility
- Limited
- Stars
- 0
- Last push
- Aug 9, 2026 (81d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
- Maintenance
- Active
- Confidence
- Low
- Reproducibility
- Limited
- Stars
- 0
- Last push
- Oct 21, 2026 (8d)
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Partial overlap with paper title keywords
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
- No Docker setup
Reproduction readiness
No repo
No verified implementation available
- No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Validation caveat
Repositories and ecosystem
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
- TreehaoL/MemEvolve-DPMF-Experiments
Confidence: Low · 1 stars
- kingchemagnussonhr-sudo/agent-memory-drift
Confidence: Low · 0 stars
- OWASP/The-Agents-Epistemic-Baggage
Confidence: Low · 0 stars
- mblank5/llm-wiki
Confidence: Low · 0 stars
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet. Use targeted searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Datasets
Spaces
Tip: start with models, then check datasets and spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Research context
Tasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models, AI Agents
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXJump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.