Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Learning When to Remember: Risk-Sensitive Contextual Bandits for Abstention-Aware Memory Retrieval in LLM-Based Coding Agents

Mehmet Iscan · Apr 30, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

Large language model (LLM)-based coding agents increasingly rely on external memory to reuse prior debugging experience, repair traces, and repository-local operational knowledge. However, retrieved memory is useful only when the current failure is genuinely compatible with a previous one; superficial similarity in stack traces, terminal errors, paths, or configuration symptoms can lead to unsafe memory injection. This paper reframes issue-memory use as a selective, risk-sensitive control problem rather than a pure top-k retrieval problem. We introduce RSCB-MC, a risk-sensitive contextual bandit memory controller that decides whether an agent should use no memory, inject the top resolution, summarize multiple candidates, perform high-precision or high-recall retrieval, abstain, or ask for feedback. The system stores reusable issue knowledge through a pattern-variant-episode schema and converts retrieval evidence into a fixed 16-feature contextual state capturing relevance, uncertainty, structural compatibility, feedback history, false-positive risk, latency, and token cost. Its reward design penalizes false-positive memory injection more strongly than missed reuse, making non-injection and abstention first-class safety actions. In deterministic smoke-scale artifacts, RSCB-MC obtains the strongest non-oracle offline replay success rate, 62.5%, while maintaining a 0.0% false-positive rate. In a bounded 200-case hot-path validation, it reaches 60.5% proxy success with 0.0% false positives and a 331.466 microseconds p95 decision latency. The results show that, for coding-agent memory, the key question is not only which memory is most similar, but whether any retrieved memory is safe enough to influence the debugging trajectory.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Large language model (LLM)-based coding agents increasingly rely on external memory to reuse prior debugging experience, repair traces, and repository-local operational knowledge."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"Large language model (LLM)-based coding agents increasingly rely on external memory to reuse prior debugging experience, repair traces, and repository-local operational knowledge."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Large language model (LLM)-based coding agents increasingly rely on external memory to reuse prior debugging experience, repair traces, and repository-local operational knowledge."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Large language model (LLM)-based coding agents increasingly rely on external memory to reuse prior debugging experience, repair traces, and repository-local operational knowledge."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"Large language model (LLM)-based coding agents increasingly rely on external memory to reuse prior debugging experience, repair traces, and repository-local operational knowledge."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"Large language model (LLM)-based coding agents increasingly rely on external memory to reuse prior debugging experience, repair traces, and repository-local operational knowledge."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: No explicit eval keywords detected.
  • Potential metric signals: No metric keywords detected.
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Large language model (LLM)-based coding agents increasingly rely on external memory to reuse prior debugging experience, repair traces, and repository-local operational knowledge.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • Large language model (LLM)-based coding agents increasingly rely on external memory to reuse prior debugging experience, repair traces, and repository-local operational knowledge.
  • However, retrieved memory is useful only when the current failure is genuinely compatible with a previous one; superficial similarity in stack traces, terminal errors, paths, or configuration symptoms can lead to unsafe memory injection.
  • This paper reframes issue-memory use as a selective, risk-sensitive control problem rather than a pure top-k retrieval problem.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.