# When Personal Memory Has No Single Answer: Evaluating LLM Agents under Irreducible Conflict

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.13921 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.13921/

## 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 40 of its 49 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 40)

- [MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08560/) (2023)
- [A-MEM: Agentic Memory for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12110/) (2025)
- [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)
- [MemoryBank: Enhancing Large Language Models with Long-Term Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10250/) (2023)
- [Scaling Synthetic Data Creation with 1,000,000,000 Personas](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.20094/) (2024)
- [Adaptive Chameleon or Stubborn Sloth: Revealing the Behavior of Large Language Models in Knowledge Conflicts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13300/) (2023)
- [Knowledge Conflicts for LLMs: A Survey](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.08319/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Memory in LLM Agents via Incremental Multi-Turn Interactions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.05257/) (2025)
- [Memory-R1: Enhancing Large Language Model Agents to Manage and Utilize Memories via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.19828/) (2025)
- [Know Me, Respond to Me: Benchmarking LLMs for Dynamic User Profiling and Personalized Responses at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.14225/) (2025)
- [Do LLMs Recognize Your Preferences? Evaluating Personalized Preference Following in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.09597/) (2025)
- [Evo-Memory: Benchmarking LLM Agent Test-time Learning with Self-Evolving Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.20857/) (2025)
- [Memento: Fine-tuning LLM Agents without Fine-tuning LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.16153/) (2025)
- [MemInsight: Autonomous Memory Augmentation for LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.21760/) (2025)
- [MemoryArena: Benchmarking Agent Memory in Interdependent Multi-Session Agentic Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.16313/) (2026)
- [What Evidence Do Language Models Find Convincing?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11782/) (2024)
- [ConflictBank: A Benchmark for Evaluating the Influence of Knowledge Conflicts in LLM](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.12076/) (2024)
- [Keep Me Updated! Memory Management in Long-term Conversations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.08750/) (2022)
- [HaluMem: Evaluating Hallucinations in Memory Systems of Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.03506/) (2025)
- [Towards Lifelong Dialogue Agents via Timeline-based Memory Management](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.10996/) (2024)
- [STALE: Can LLM Agents Know When Their Memories Are No Longer Valid?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.06527/) (2026)
- [WikiContradict: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Real-World Knowledge Conflicts from Wikipedia](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.13805/) (2024)
- [From Recall to Forgetting: Benchmarking Long-Term Memory for Personalized Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.20006/) (2026)
- [DYNAMICQA: Tracing Internal Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.17023/) (2024)
- [Mem2ActBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Long-Term Memory Utilization in Task-Oriented Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.19935/) (2026)
- [DRAGged into Conflicts: Detecting and Addressing Conflicting Sources in Search-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08500/) (2025)
- [PersistBench: When Should Long-Term Memories Be Forgotten by LLMs?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.01146/) (2026)
- [EvoMemBench: Benchmarking Agent Memory from a Self-Evolving Perspective](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.18421/) (2026)

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

- [Memory Consolidation Flattens the Temporal Shape of User Facts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.36457/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM agents increasingly maintain personal memory across sessions, but it can conflict. Preferences depend on context, behavior evolves, and sources can conflict. When a query lacks context, time, or source authority to interpret conflict, treating one memory as definitive converts unresolved conflict into an unjustified, overconfident action. Existing benchmarks recover one answer from conflicting evidence, overlooking whether agents recognize underdetermination, preserve alternatives, seek missing information, and choose appropriate actions. We introduce underlineTesting underlineAgents' underlineNavigation of underlineGenuine, underlineLatent, and underlineEntangled Memory Conflicts (textscTANGLE), a benchmark for genuinely unresolvable memory conflicts. It comprises 541 instances across 40 personas and three types: Context-Partitioned Conflict (CPC), Behavior-Oscillation Conflict (BOC), and Source-Contradiction Conflict (SCC). We evaluate two tracks---an oracle track with curated memory and a pipeline track that extracts memory from multi-session dialogues---on five dimensions: conflict perception, causal reasoning, confidence calibration, clarification seeking, and memory faithfulness. Experiments reveal pipeline challenges. With curated memory, models recognize conflicts more reliably than they calibrate actions or seek targeted clarification. With end-to-end pipeline memory, extraction fails to preserve conflict-bearing relations needed for downstream reasoning. Policy comparisons show fixed rules are insufficient when actions must reflect conflict. These findings motivate Conflict-Aware Action Policy (CAAP), which adapts actions to each conflict using available evidence. textscTANGLE frames conflict handling as recognizing underdetermination, retaining conflicting evidence, and acting without forcing a definitive answer.