# ATANT v1.1: Positioning Continuity Evaluation Against Memory, Long-Context, and Agentic-Memory Benchmarks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.10981 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.10981/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent memory systems, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 9 of its 10 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 13 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent memory systems](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-memory-systems/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08560/) (2023)
- [RULER: What's the Real Context Size of Your Long-Context Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.06654/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Very Long-Term Conversational Memory of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17753/) (2024)
- [Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.19413/) (2025)
- [LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10813/) (2024)
- [Zep: A Temporal Knowledge Graph Architecture for Agent Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.13956/) (2025)
- [MemoryBench: A Benchmark for Memory and Continual Learning in LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.17281/) (2025)
- [Beyond a Million Tokens: Benchmarking and Enhancing Long-Term Memory in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.27246/) (2025)
- [ATANT: An Evaluation Framework for AI Continuity](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.06710/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [The Continuity Layer: Why Intelligence Needs an Architecture for What It Carries Forward](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.17273/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

ATANT v1.0 (arXiv:2604.06710) defined continuity as a system property with 7 required properties and introduced a 10-checkpoint, LLM-free evaluation methodology validated on a 250-story corpus. Since publication, a recurring reviewer and practitioner question has concerned not the framework itself but its relationship to a wider set of memory evaluations: LOCOMO, LongMemEval, BEAM, MemoryBench, Zep's evaluation suite, Letta/MemGPT's evaluations, and RULER. This companion paper, v1.1, does not modify the v1.0 standard. It closes a related-work gap that v1.0 left brief under page limits. We show by structural analysis that none of these benchmarks measures continuity as defined in v1.0: of the 7 required properties, the median existing eval covers 1 property, the mean covers 0.43 when partial credit is scored at 0.5, and no eval covers more than 2. We provide a cell-by-cell property-coverage matrix, identify methodological defects specific to each benchmark (including an empty-gold scoring bug in the LOCOMO reference implementation that renders 23% of its corpus unscorable by construction), and publish our reference implementation's LOCOMO score (8.8%) alongside the structural reason that number is uninformative about continuity. We publish our 8.8% LOCOMO score alongside our 96% ATANT cumulative-scale score as a calibration pair: the 87-point divergence is evidence that the two benchmarks measure different properties, not that one system is an order of magnitude better than another. The position v1.1 takes is not adversarial: each benchmark measures a real capability. The claim is that none of them can adjudicate continuity, and conflating them with continuity evaluation has led the field to under-invest in the properties v1.0 names.