# When Evidence Changes: Evaluating Memory Repair and Re-reading in Language-Model Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.03902 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.03902/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Agent memory systems, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 33 of its 38 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 33)

- [Efficient Memory Management for Large Language Model Serving with PagedAttention](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.06180/) (2023)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Mistral 7B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06825/) (2023)
- [Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.19413/) (2025)
- [AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.12784/) (2024)
- [Defeating Prompt Injections by Design](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18813/) (2025)
- [Securing AI Agents with Information-Flow Control](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.23643/) (2025)
- [STALE: Can LLM Agents Know When Their Memories Are No Longer Valid?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.06527/) (2026)
- [From Untrusted Input to Trusted Memory: A Systematic Study of Memory Poisoning Attacks in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.04329/) (2026)
- [Cordon: Semantic Transactions for Tool-Using LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.17573/) (2026)
- [Supersede: Diagnosing and Training the Memory-Update Gap in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.27472/) (2026)
- [Securing LLM-Agent Long-Term Memory Against Poisoning: Non-Malleable, Origin-Bound Authority with Machine-Checked Guarantees](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.24322/) (2026)
- [MemLineage: Lineage-Guided Enforcement for LLM Agent Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.14421/) (2026)
- [Beyond the Context Window: A Cost-Performance Analysis of Fact-Based Memory vs. Long-Context LLMs for Persistent Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.04814/) (2026)
- [MemTX: Transactional Belief Commit for Stateful Agent Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.23929/) (2026)
- [Your Agents Are Aging Too: Agent Lifespan Engineering for Deployed Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.26302/) (2026)
- [EvoArena: Tracking Memory Evolution for Robust LLM Agents in Dynamic Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.13681/) (2026)
- [Verified Detection and Prevention of Concurrency Anomalies in Multi-Agent Large Language Model Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.17182/) (2026)
- [From Faulty Memories to Corrected Actions: Dependency-Guided Rollback Repair for Memory-Augmented Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.10502/) (2026)
- [MemTxn: A Transaction Boundary for Source-Supported Updates and Complete-State Recovery in Agent Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.27834/) (2026)
- [When Memory Updates but Behavior Does Not: Repairing Implicit Stale Dependencies in Personalized Agent Responses](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.01619/) (2026)
- [Infini Memory: Maintainable Topic Documents for Long-Term LLM Agent Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.10677/) (2026)
- [When Agents Remember Too Much: Memory Poisoning Attacks on Large Language Model Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.06595/) (2026)
- [TEPA: Revoking Stale Memories for Conflict-Robust Language Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.07429/) (2026)
- [Agent Memory Is a Surface for Endogenous Authorization Laundering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.01836/) (2026)
- [MemSecBench: Tracking Agent Memory Poisoning from Persistence to Consequence and Repair](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.27080/) (2026)
- [Ground Truth First: A Longitudinal Evaluation Instrument for Agent Memory, and the Tenure Crossover in Memory-Architecture Rankings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.21962/) (2026)
- [MEMOREPAIR: Barrier-First Cascade Repair in Agentic Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.07242/) (2026)
- [Total Recall at What Cost? Benchmarking the Serving Cost of Agentic Memory Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.11879/) (2026)
- [Invalidation Contracts for Cross-Episode Agent Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.00243/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

When documents supporting an agent's derived facts are revoked or replaced, should it repair memory or re-read current evidence? We introduce an evidence-revision evaluation on medication- and problem-list tasks from public ICU records. Under revocation, replacement and control events, we compare full and source-filtered re-reading with caching, rebuilding and graph-local repair across two 7B models. Memory is supplied in full without retrieval, and costs include ingest, revision and every use. On short records, local repair uses 5-10× fewer revision tokens than rebuilding, yet every memory pipeline costs at least twice full re-reading in held-out conditions. In a small pre-specified development sweep, adding task-ineligible documents extended records to about 10,000 tokens; at that length, memory's mean cumulative cost fell below full re-reading's after 2-14 uses, partly through truncated extraction, while source-filtered re-reading remained cheapest. In the replacement study, none of the four primary confirmatory tests reached statistical significance. These results show why the cost of agent memory after evidence revision must be assessed against source-filtered re-reading over the full pipeline.