# EA-Graph: Artifact-Anchored Verification Memory for Coding Agents under Upstream Drift

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.04278 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.04278/

## 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 14 of its 23 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08560/) (2023)
- [CodePlan: Repository-level Coding using LLMs and Planning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.12499/) (2023)
- [RepoGraph: Enhancing AI Software Engineering with Repository-level Code Graph](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.14684/) (2024)
- [Externalization in LLM Agents: A Unified Review of Memory, Skills, Protocols and Harness Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.08224/) (2026)
- [CodexGraph: Bridging Large Language Models and Code Repositories via Code Graph Databases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03910/) (2024)
- [Memory for Autonomous LLM Agents:Mechanisms, Evaluation, and Emerging Frontiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.07670/) (2026)
- [RepoAudit: An Autonomous LLM-Agent for Repository-Level Code Auditing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.18160/) (2025)
- [From Lossy to Verified: A Provenance-Aware Tiered Memory for Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.17913/) (2026)
- [Codebase-Memory: Tree-Sitter-Based Knowledge Graphs for LLM Code Exploration via MCP](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.27277/) (2026)
- [AgenticFlict: A Large-Scale Dataset of Merge Conflicts in AI Coding Agent Pull Requests on GitHub](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.03551/) (2026)
- [Semantic Consensus: Process-Aware Conflict Detection and Resolution for Enterprise Multi-Agent LLM Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.16339/) (2026)
- [ATM: CID-Brokered Pre-Write Admission for Multi-Agent Code Co-Synthesis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.00041/) (2026)
- [ARISE: A Repository-level Graph Representation and Toolset for Agentic Program Repair and Fault Localization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.03117/) (2026)

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

- [Impact Is Not Invalidation: Ask About the Claim, Not the Diff](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.25130/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Coding agents increasingly work across sessions, but prose notes can preserve a conclusion without the program state that supported it. After an upstream change, a repository may still build even though earlier verification claims are no longer valid. EA-Graph is an artifact-anchored memory for verification claims. It represents artifacts at sub-path granularity, resolves aliases to leaf definitions, anchors each claim to the content used to establish it, and keeps evidence strength separate from freshness. When replacement content is unavailable, the claim becomes unprovable rather than guessed. EA-Graph is evaluated on generated repositories whose behavior-to-artifact ground truth is known by construction. The task is to classify prior claims as unaffected, affected, or unprovable after value drift, logic drift, and deliberately withheld upstream content. The analysis covers 42 sessions across seven clean worlds, 14 model-world instances, three memory conditions, and two model tiers. In the Haiku round, artifact-anchored memory outscored prose notes and no persistent memory in all seven worlds; each exact paired Wilcoxon comparison yielded p = 0.0156. In the Sonnet round, the anchored condition was perfect, but frequent control ceilings left the preregistered contrasts non-significant. No session fabricated withheld content. These results support a bounded claim: artifact-anchored memory improved the smaller model's provability judgments in this testbed. An exploratory comparison further suggests that structured claim memory may narrow a capability gap by externalizing in-session re-derivation, but it does not establish cross- model equivalence. The study makes no claim about efficiency or repair quality.