# Procedural Memory Under Change: Reuse and Interference in Controlled Web Tasks

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09774 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.09774/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 12 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 9 Sep 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.16291/) (2023)
- [ExpeL: LLM Agents Are Experiential Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.10144/) (2023)
- [Agent Workflow Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.07429/) (2024)
- [ReasoningBank: Scaling Agent Self-Evolving with Reasoning Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.25140/) (2025)
- [The BrowserGym Ecosystem for Web Agent Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.05467/) (2024)
- [Managing Procedural Memory in LLM Agents: Control, Adaptation, and Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.23127/) (2026)
- [TimeWarp: Evaluating Web Agents by Revisiting the Past](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.04949/) (2026)
- [Neural Procedural Memory: Empowering LLM Agents with Implicit Activation Steering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.29824/) (2026)
- [WebArxiv: A Reproducible Benchmark for Evaluating Multimodal Web Agents on arXiv Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.00938/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Procedural memory lets language agents reuse successful routines, but reuse presumes that a stored routine remains applicable. We study what happens when that presumption is deliberately violated. The study combines a retrospective, human-assisted interface-adaptation case from BrowserGym TimeWarp with controlled frozen-memory comparisons on synthetic shopping decisions. During the documented WebShop V1-V6 development path, interface-specific code was adapted while the separately stored high-level procedure was not reported to change; this phase does not constitute an autonomous memory-agent evaluation. In the controlled phase, an early pilot produced one task on which two memory conditions selected a more expensive item while the no-memory condition selected the reference minimum. Follow-up probes did not establish a recurring row-order or identity-binding pattern. We then tested four forms of mismatch: changed quantities, a different evidence representation, a conflict between local and global optimization, and distributed promotion evidence, across 32 formal cells. Each cell used one temperature-0 generation with the same local qwen3:8b configuration and no adaptive retry. Across these pairs, none of the predefined diagnostic interference signatures appeared on the tasks for which they were defined when current-task evidence was explicit and sufficient. The result identifies a tested region of non-interference: a procedural memory can be mismatched without becoming behaviorally disruptive. It does not establish general safety or a mechanism. The remaining question is which additional conditions turn applicability mismatch into observable, memory-caused error.