mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

When Old Facts Return: Re-Reads, Reverts, and the Limits of Temporal Memory

arXiv 2610.07715 ↗First posted 6 Oct 2026cs.SE cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

A memory system can retire an obsolete value and later restore it merely because the same old statement appears again. A re-read of an old source and a genuine revert can produce the same observed sequence of values while requiring opposite current answers. We study this ambiguity on 130 extractor-selected atomic transitions derived from software fixes. In the ordinary transition condition, identity-based temporal memory reaches 98.5% model-judged accuracy with zero observed errors under a literal stale-value proxy. Appending a verbatim re-read of the old statement reduces accuracy to 10.8% and raises the stale-value rate to 88.5%. A guard that refuses to reactivate a previously retired value restores accuracy to 97.7% and reduces that rate to 0.8% in this constructed re-read condition. The guard cannot also recognize a legitimate revert without additional change provenance. Two supporting studies examine exposing retired history to the answer model and supplying current source for changed behavior. An exploratory extraction study over 707 software fixes provides scope context, not a universal coverage estimate. The design implication is to distinguish an observation of a value from evidence that the value changed. Selected inputs, aggregate-only answer records, related-family judges and a post-failure guard evaluation limit the conclusions to the retained experiments.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2026.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Not cited yet.