HFEPX · Eval paper review

Memories That Outlive Their Reasons: Dependency-Tethered Memory for Tool-Using LLM Agents

Yiqi Wang, Jinqian Ju, Jiaqi Zhang, Zhangkai Wu +4 more

Published

Oct 18, 2026

Citations

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

15% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Oct 22, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

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.

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

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 paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

What to verify

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

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal

Not explicit

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation signal

Weak or implicit

Validate from full paper

Usefulness for eval research

0/100

Adjacent candidate

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

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

Agents now act on the Web, publishing packages, models and datasets through registry APIs, and remembering past verifications spares them the work. But a verdict rests on premises. When a signing key is revoked, everything built on it stops passing, yet the advisory names only the key, and the old verdicts of its dependents may never share a retrieval window with it. This non-locality of invalidation turns memory into a liability: in long simulated chats, an agent reading a memory of atomic facts publishes 62% of the objects whose failure lies upstream, each backed by a record that was true when written. Yet derivation is local even when invalidation is not. Tether records, at write time, the exact versions each verdict derives from, and at read time withdraws any verdict whose support has failed anywhere in the store; the agent reads the same fields as before. On Fallout, a generator of versioned worlds with hypothesis-blind simulated histories shared by every memory, Tether publishes 0.3% of upstream-failing objects across three domains when relations are stated with their verdicts, with 37% fewer verification calls than checking everything. A-Mem and Graphiti re-verify most candidates (0.83--0.86 checks per candidate), which limits their savings, yet publish 9% of upstream-failing objects; Mem0 relies on memory more and publishes 42%. Flushing every verdict on any failure is as safe as Tether but costs 32% more checks. The gain over fact memory holds with three open-weight backbones, a whole-store window and real Go advisories. These gains depend on capturing dependencies: when relations arrive in sessions apart from their verdicts, Tether's downstream unsafe publication rate rises to 9.4--22.1%. It also degrades with weaker writers that miss dependencies or invalidation events.

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.