# Remember, Verify, or Ask? Cross-Family Evaluation of Memory Commitment in LLM Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.19564 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.19564/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 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 15 of its 18 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 20 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [τ-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.12045/) (2024)
- [MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08560/) (2023)
- [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)
- [τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07982/) (2025)
- [Memory-R1: Enhancing Large Language Model Agents to Manage and Utilize Memories via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.19828/) (2025)
- [Clarify When Necessary: Resolving Ambiguity Through Interaction with LMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.09469/) (2023)
- [MemBench: Towards More Comprehensive Evaluation on the Memory of LLM-based Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.21605/) (2025)
- [CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.12063/) (2024)
- [From Recall to Forgetting: Benchmarking Long-Term Memory for Personalized Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.20006/) (2026)
- [Asking the Right Question at the Right Time: Human and Model Uncertainty Guidance to Ask Clarification Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.06509/) (2024)
- [Mem2ActBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Long-Term Memory Utilization in Task-Oriented Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.19935/) (2026)
- [AlpsBench: An LLM Personalization Benchmark for Real-Dialogue Memorization and Preference Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.26680/) (2026)
- [Personalize-then-Store: Benchmarking and Learning Personalized Memory for Long-horizon Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.25535/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [A Benchmark and Diagnostic Study of Epistemic Admission in Shared Agent Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.30813/) (2026)
- [Plan Pointers and Record-Directive Form in Budgeted Verification of Inherited Agent Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.03450/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Persistent memory can personalize an LLM agent, but an incorrect durable update can silently distort future behavior. We study the memory-clarification boundary: whether interaction-derived information should be persisted, used only in the current context, re-verified, or clarified with the user. MCB contains 140 primary scenarios, split into 70 development and 70 held-out items, plus a separate 70-item contrast set. It evaluates both action labels and structured tool-call selection. Two non-authors independently label the 70 held-out primary and 70 contrast items (97.1% agreement, Cohen's kappa = 0.962); a blind third resolves four disagreements, replacing eight author labels by non-author majority. Across Claude and Qwen, models verify changing facts more reliably than they ask users to resolve ambiguity. Bare Qwen asks on 0/12 clarification items while verifying 12/18 freshness items. Few-shot prompting raises accuracy from 0.557 to 0.771 (paired delta = +0.214, Holm-adjusted exact McNemar p_H = 0.002), yet clarification recall remains 0.333. The policy prompt reduces erroneous persistence from 0.243 to 0.100 (p_H = 0.038), although its accuracy gain is not significant. Label-tool agreement is 57% for each Claude model and 23% for Qwen; Qwen accuracy falls from 0.557 to 0.343 (p_H = 0.047). Memory evaluation must test both stated decisions and tool-call choices.