mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Understanding Stage-Wise Utility-Risk Trade-offs in LLM Agent Memory

arXiv 2608.30177 ↗First posted 31 Aug 2026cs.CRcited by 0

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Long-term memory is becoming a core capability of LLM agents, enabling personalization and long-horizon interaction. However, memory mechanisms that retain, transform, or expose more information can affect both benign utility and susceptibility to memory poisoning. Existing evaluations typically measure memory utility or attack risk in isolation under fixed configurations, providing limited insight into how stage-specific design choices reshape their trade-off. We present textscMemGauge, a controllable framework that separately varies writing admission, management policy, and retrieval exposure under matched clean and poisoned conditions. Across 11 LLMs and two long-term memory benchmarks, controlled evaluations reveal three distinct profiles: a threshold-like risk transition during writing, policy-dependent local decoupling during management, and coupled growth of utility and risk during retrieval. We further apply analogous stage-level measurements to four existing memory systems and observe diagnostic associations qualitatively consistent with these profiles. These results show that targeted poisoning risk varies across memory operations and motivate stage-aware evaluation and control of LLM-agent memory.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 8 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2026.

Builds on

8 of 20 references.

Closest ancestors · 4

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026From Untrusted Input to Trusted Memory: A Systematic Study of Memory Poisoning Attacks in LLM Agents3 Jun
  2. 2026A Survey on Long-Term Memory Security in LLM Agents: Attacks, Defenses, and Governance Across the Memory Lifecycle17 Apr
  3. 2026Zombie Agents: Persistent Control of Self-Evolving LLM Agents via Self-Reinforcing Injections17 Feb
  4. 2025MemoryGraft: Persistent Compromise of LLM Agents via Poisoned Experience Retrieval18 Dec

Other references · 4

  1. 2025Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memorycited by 722
  2. 2024LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memorycited by 656
  3. 2025Hindsight is 20/20: Building Agent Memory that Retains, Recalls, and Reflectscited by 40
  4. 2026ER-MIA: Black-Box Adversarial Memory Injection Attacks on Long-Term Memory-Augmented Large Language Modelscited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Remembering More, Risking More: Longitudinal Safety Risks in Memory-Equipped LLM Agents
  2. 2026The Price of Safety: Benign-Case Utility and Token Overhead of Memory-Poisoning Defenses in LLM Agents
  3. 2026From Attack Success to Attack Severity: Counterfactual Memory Attacks on LLM Agents
  4. 2026Injection-Execution Dissociation: A Mechanistic Evaluation of Persistent Memory Attacks and Defenses in Stateful LLM Agents
  5. 2026Transferable End-to-End Optimization for Indirect Long-Term Memory Poisoning in LLM Agents
  6. 2026MemSecBench: Tracking Agent Memory Poisoning from Persistence to Consequence and Repair
  7. 2026MemEvoBench: Benchmarking Safety Risks from Memory Misevolution in LLM Agents
  8. 2025How Memory Management Impacts LLM Agents: An Empirical Study of Experience-Following Behavior