The Compliance Trap: Diagnosing How AI Agents Consume Conflicting Memory
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Memory is becoming a core component of long-horizon AI agents, allowing agents to reuse past experience when operating web browsers, software tools, and other interactive environments. Existing work mostly treats memory as a supply problem, asking what experience to write, how to store it, and which entry to retrieve for the next task. Yet we still lack a clear account of how models consume retrieved memory across a multi-step action trajectory. This consumption process matters because it determines not only what memories should be retrieved, but also what models and control policies are needed to use them safely. To diagnose this process, we propose Entry--Propagation--Recovery (E-P-R), a trajectory-level framework that asks where memory first changes an action, whether that change carries forward, and whether the agent can recover after leaving a correct path. We instantiate E-P-R on WebArena and on MemTrapBench, a controlled benchmark we build to isolate these phases. We find that the main failure often begins at entry: agents adopt conflicting memory at the first exposed decision point even when it is task-wrong. Repeated exposure then amplifies this early error, while recovery after divergence is weak. Together, these effects create a compliance trap: across models, conflicting memory induces similar compliance rates, but once agents comply, their success rates collapse to a low floor. Stronger agents therefore suffer larger absolute damage because each compliance event erases more baseline capability. These results suggest that memory-augmented agents should be evaluated not only by retrieval quality or final success rate, but by how they consume memory throughout the trajectory.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 46 of its 51 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Jul 2026.
Builds on
46 of 51 references.
References · 46
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2023Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttentioncited by 5,767
- 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,500
- 2023Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contextscited by 3,383
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
- 2023Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Modelscited by 3,155
34 more
- 2022Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedbackcited by 2,950
- 2023A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agentscited by 2,203
- 2023Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Modelscited by 2,081
- 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 1,908
- 2021WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedbackcited by 1,722
- 2023The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Surveycited by 1,422
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,211
- 2023Mind2Web: Towards a Generalist Agent for the Webcited by 1,210
- 2022WebShop: Towards Scalable Real-World Web Interaction with Grounded Language Agentscited by 1,197
- 2024OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environmentscited by 1,134
- 2025A-MEM: Agentic Memory for LLM Agentscited by 1,000
- 2023Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Modelscited by 988
- 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 965
- 2023ExpeL: LLM Agents Are Experiential Learnerscited by 814
- 2022Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluationscited by 805
- 2025Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memorycited by 722
- 2023CogAgent: A Visual Language Model for GUI Agentscited by 692
- 2024SeeClick: Harnessing GUI Grounding for Advanced Visual GUI Agentscited by 553
- 2024GPT-4V(ision) is a Generalist Web Agent, if Groundedcited by 547
- 2023MemoryBank: Enhancing Large Language Models with Long-Term Memorycited by 539
- 2024WebVoyager: Building an End-to-End Web Agent with Large Multimodal Modelscited by 424
- 2024WorkArena: How Capable Are Web Agents at Solving Common Knowledge Work Tasks?cited by 348
- 2024Agent Workflow Memorycited by 342
- 2024AgentBoard: An Analytical Evaluation Board of Multi-turn LLM Agentscited by 319
- 2024TheAgentCompany: Benchmarking LLM Agents on Consequential Real World Taskscited by 306
- 2024Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Surveycited by 274
- 2024When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMscited by 230
- 2023Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language modelscited by 174
- 2024The BrowserGym Ecosystem for Web Agent Researchcited by 152
- 2025How Memory Management Impacts LLM Agents: An Empirical Study of Experience-Following Behaviorcited by 95
- 2024RAP: Retrieval-Augmented Planning with Contextual Memory for Multimodal LLM Agentscited by 80
- 2024WebSuite: Systematically Evaluating Why Web Agents Failcited by 16
- 2025WebCoach: Self-Evolving Web Agents with Cross-Session Memory Guidancecited by 15
- 2025CUB: Benchmarking Context Utilisation Techniques for Language Modelscited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.