# Persistent Memory in Multi-Agent LLM Inference: What It Costs, What It Buys, and When You Can Tell

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.07782 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.07782/

## 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 3 of its 12 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 6 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

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

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [Chain of Agents: Large Language Models Collaborating on Long-Context Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.02818/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Decomposing long-context inference across cooperating agents bounds the active KV cache per call rather than total evidence, which matters when KV-cache memory binds. Many such systems add a persistent tier storing and recalling reasoning traces, usually validated by an ablation reporting an accuracy gain. We measure both on one three-tier agent architecture. Decomposition delivers: peak KV working set of 14.3 MiB per query against 35.5 and 35.3 MiB for single-pass and retrieval-augmented baselines. The persistent tier does not: across eight controlled dataset pairs at n=100 per arm it costs +0.368 MiB [+0.167, +0.590] of peak cache and produces no detectable accuracy change (+0.015, 95% CI [-0.011, +0.046]). We argue the null is structural: single-question benchmarks supply each item with its own evidence and score it independently, and correctness requires resetting stored traces between conditions, so recall has nothing informative to retrieve. Reaching it took four measurement corrections -- three inflating the apparent benefit, the fourth making an effect that size look resolvable -- none visible in the results table. We give the conditions an agent-memory ablation must satisfy and detection procedures that need no knowledge of the specific defect.