Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Causal Intervention-Based Memory Selection for Long-Horizon LLM Agents

Saksham Sahai Srivastava · May 17, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Long-horizon LLM agents rely on persistent memory to support interactions across sessions, yet existing memory systems often retrieve context using semantic similarity or broad history inclusion, treating retrieved memories as uniformly useful. This assumption is fragile because memories may be topically related while remaining irrelevant, stale, or misleading. We propose Causal Memory Intervention (CMI), a causal memory-selection technique that estimates how candidate memories affect the model's answer under controlled interventions, selecting memories that improve task performance while suppressing unstable, irrelevant, or harmful ones. To evaluate this setting, we introduce Causal-LoCoMo, a causally annotated benchmark derived from long conversational data, where each example contains a user request, a structured memory bank, useful memories, irrelevant distractors, and synthetic harmful memories. We compare CMI against vector, graph, reflection, summary, full-history, and no-memory baselines. Results show that CMI achieves a stronger balance between answer quality and robustness to misleading memory, suggesting that reliable long-term memory requires selecting context based on causal usefulness rather than relevance alone. The full framework, benchmark construction code, and experimental pipeline are available at https://github.com/Saksham4796/causal-memory-intervention.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

25/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

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

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Long-horizon LLM agents rely on persistent memory to support interactions across sessions, yet existing memory systems often retrieve context using semantic similarity or broad history inclusion, treating retrieved memories as uniformly useful."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Long-horizon LLM agents rely on persistent memory to support interactions across sessions, yet existing memory systems often retrieve context using semantic similarity or broad history inclusion, treating retrieved memories as uniformly useful."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Long-horizon LLM agents rely on persistent memory to support interactions across sessions, yet existing memory systems often retrieve context using semantic similarity or broad history inclusion, treating retrieved memories as uniformly useful."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Long-horizon LLM agents rely on persistent memory to support interactions across sessions, yet existing memory systems often retrieve context using semantic similarity or broad history inclusion, treating retrieved memories as uniformly useful."

Reported Metrics

partial

Relevance

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Results show that CMI achieves a stronger balance between answer quality and robustness to misleading memory, suggesting that reliable long-term memory requires selecting context based on causal usefulness rather than relevance alone."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: Long Horizon
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

relevance

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Long-horizon LLM agents rely on persistent memory to support interactions across sessions, yet existing memory systems often retrieve context using semantic similarity or broad history inclusion, treating retrieved memories as uniformly useful.

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

Key Takeaways

  • Long-horizon LLM agents rely on persistent memory to support interactions across sessions, yet existing memory systems often retrieve context using semantic similarity or broad history inclusion, treating retrieved memories as uniformly useful.
  • This assumption is fragile because memories may be topically related while remaining irrelevant, stale, or misleading.
  • We propose Causal Memory Intervention (CMI), a causal memory-selection technique that estimates how candidate memories affect the model's answer under controlled interventions, selecting memories that improve task performance while suppressing unstable, irrelevant, or harmful ones.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Long-horizon tasks) against the full paper.
  • 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

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Long-horizon LLM agents rely on persistent memory to support interactions across sessions, yet existing memory systems often retrieve context using semantic similarity or broad history inclusion, treating retrieved memories as uniformly…
  • We propose Causal Memory Intervention (CMI), a causal memory-selection technique that estimates how candidate memories affect the model's answer under controlled interventions, selecting memories that improve task performance while…
  • To evaluate this setting, we introduce Causal-LoCoMo, a causally annotated benchmark derived from long conversational data, where each example contains a user request, a structured memory bank, useful memories, irrelevant distractors, and…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Long-horizon LLM agents rely on persistent memory to support interactions across sessions, yet existing memory systems often retrieve context using semantic similarity or broad history inclusion, treating retrieved memories as uniformly…
  • To evaluate this setting, we introduce Causal-LoCoMo, a causally annotated benchmark derived from long conversational data, where each example contains a user request, a structured memory bank, useful memories, irrelevant distractors, and…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: relevance

Related Papers

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

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.