# Invalidation Contracts for Cross-Episode Agent Memory

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00243 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.00243/

## 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 17 of its 37 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 17 of 17)

- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [WebArena: A Realistic Web Environment for Building Autonomous Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.13854/) (2023)
- [ToolLLM: Facilitating Large Language Models to Master 16000+ Real-world APIs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.16789/) (2023)
- [AgentBench: Evaluating LLMs as Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.03688/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05128/) (2023)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [API-Bank: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Tool-Augmented LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08244/) (2023)
- [InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.14898/) (2023)
- [REFINER: Reasoning Feedback on Intermediate Representations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.01904/) (2023)
- [Is Self-Repair a Silver Bullet for Code Generation?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.09896/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Really Improve by Self-critiquing Their Own Plans?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08118/) (2023)
- [GPT-4 Doesn't Know It's Wrong: An Analysis of Iterative Prompting for Reasoning Problems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.12397/) (2023)
- [A Survey of AI Agent Protocols](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.16736/) (2025)
- [FeedbackEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Feedback-Driven Code Repair Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.06939/) (2025)
- [Improving LLM-Assisted Secure Code Generation through Retrieval-Augmented-Generation and Multi-Tool Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.00509/) (2026)

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

- [When Evidence Changes: Evaluating Memory Repair and Re-reading in Language-Model Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.03902/) (2026)

## 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.