Invalidation Contracts for Cross-Episode Agent Memory
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent memory systems
Abstract (arXiv)
LLM agents that cache recovery suggestions from API errors can skip re-derivation in later episodes, spending fewer tokens and fewer model calls on constraints they have already learned. Server-side data drift turns those cached fixes into silent failures, and the usual remedy, re-deriving on every episode, gives the savings back. We introduce invalidation contracts, a protocol layer that attaches version stamps and cacheability hints to every recovery suggestion so the client can evict stale entries without trial and error, and keep the rest. The contract decomposes realized savings into two independent factors: validity, the fraction of cached suggestions that remain correct after a drift event, and compliance, the fraction the planner applies on the first attempt. Validity depends only on the protocol and is vendor-independent. Compliance depends on the planner model: identical wire bytes yield 100% first-try compliance on Claude Haiku 4.5 and 11% or below on Claude Sonnet 5, which exhibits input-schema conservatism, refusing fixes that add fields the original request did not contain. We evaluate across seven models, three serving paths, two domains, and approximately 9,400 episodes. Row-level invalidation raises compliance by 0 to 66.7 percentage points across the seven models, 55.6 to 66.7 on three, and recovers 29-33% of baseline token cost on four of seven models, while table-level invalidation destroys co-located entries and drops post-drift first-try rates to 0% on five of seven. Eviction precision is 1.00 at row granularity on every model under the row-level oracle of Section 4.1. The contract adds 15% to response payload. Version-stamp validity is deterministic by construction and produced identical results across every model and serving path, with zero contract failures in the entire evaluation.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper 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 17 of its 37 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2026.
Builds on
17 of 37 references.
References · 17
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,276
- 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,442
- 2023WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agentscited by 2,006
- 2023ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIscited by 1,947
- 2023AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agentscited by 1,267
- 2023Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yetcited by 1,017
- 2023Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debugcited by 988
- 2023CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquingcited by 783
- 2023API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMscited by 591
- 2023InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedbackcited by 238
- 2023REFINER: Reasoning Feedback on Intermediate Representationscited by 205
- 2023Is Self-Repair a Silver Bullet for Code Generation?cited by 197
5 more
- 2023Can Large Language Models Really Improve by Self-critiquing Their Own Plans?cited by 108
- 2023GPT-4 Doesn't Know It's Wrong: An Analysis of Iterative Prompting for Reasoning Problemscited by 89
- 2025A Survey of AI Agent Protocolscited by 81
- 2025FeedbackEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Feedback-Driven Code Repair Taskscited by 10
- 2026Improving LLM-Assisted Secure Code Generation through Retrieval-Augmented-Generation and Multi-Tool Feedbackcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Aborted but Not Forgotten: KV-Cache Retention Breaks Rollback Consistency in Language Agents
- 2026REVISE: Validity-Guided Recovery for Online Revisions in Agent Workflows
- 2026Auditing Action Settlement in LLM Agent Environments: Order, Progress, and Replay
- 2026Leyline: KV Cache Directives for Agentic Inference
- 2026Request Order Matters: Cache-History Sensitivity in Selective KV-Cache Reuse for Rolling Agents
- 2026Forgetting Without Restarting: Execution-State Unlearning for Stateful LLM Agents
- 2026MemGuard: Persisting Verifier Signals for LLM-Agent Memory Governance
- 2026ContractBench: Can LLM Agents Preserve Observation Contracts?