Memory Contagion: Cross-Temporal Propagation of Evaluator Bias via Agent Memory
Zewen Liu
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly rely on memory systems to maintain long-term coherence. Recent work shows that agent memories degrade during continuous consolidation. However, existing research assumes memories are derived from unbiased experiences. In this work, we identify and formalize a novel phenomenon: Memory Contagion -- the cross-temporal propagation of evaluator bias through agent memory. We s ...
how that when agents are trained or guided by biased evaluators, their experiences become biased; when these trajectories are stored and consolidated into memory, the bias propagates to future agents retrieving from the same memory store, even when consolidation is perfect (oracle). Across two bias types (length preference, authority bias) and four experimental phases, we demonstrate: (1) Memory Contagion occurs for length bias even with perfect consolidation on older models (Gamma_A = 13.18, DeepSeek V4-Chat), while newer models (V4-Pro, Claude) are immune, proving both that biased input is a sufficient cause and that contagion is model-generation-dependent; (2) authority bias fails to propagate in all 15 controlled multi-seed experiments (Gamma_A = 0.00), revealing that not all evaluator biases can cross temporal boundaries through current memory architectures; (3) No observed safe threshold: length bias propagation is detected at contamination rates as low as p=0.2. Our findings expose a critical but contingent vulnerability in current agent memory designs and provide formal tools for measuring cross-temporal bias propagation.
Results & Benchmarks
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly rely on memory systems to maintain long-term coherence.
Implementation Evidence Summary
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Reproduction Risks
- Estimate is based on paper-only reproduction flow
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence disclosure
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Implementation Status
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.
Reproduction readiness
Hardware requirements
- Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
No verified implementation available
- · No maintained repository has been identified for this paper. Check adjacent implementations or HF artifacts below.
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
Hugging Face artifacts
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Datasets
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Research context
Tasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Natural Language Processing, Large Language Models, AI Agents
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.