Grounded Continuation introduces a runtime verifier that classifies each utterance in an LLM conversation into one of eight epistemic operations and uses a symbolic engine to maintain a dependency map of claims and their supports. The verifier checks whether a new continuation is grounded by walking this map, a linear-time process that requires no additional LLM calls. On benchmarks such as ReviseQA and MemoryAgentBench, the verifier improves single-hop accuracy for several QA models, even enabling a 7B model to outperform GPT‑4o when guided by the verifier.
arXiv:2609. 04875v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-running LLM agents are stateful: beyond the transcript they accrete compressed summaries, plaintext memory, pending tool plans, and, under every serving API, a KV cache.
arXiv:2606. 09900v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-term memory is the missing layer for LLM agents: across sessions they forget, and the common workaround -- replaying the whole history into the prompt -- is expensive, slow, and, as distractors accumulate, less accurate.
arXiv:2606. 25449v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A language model's memory can be worse than having no memory at all.
A language model's memory can be worse than having no memory at all. Give a model a memory that kept a wrong conclusion but dropped the work behind it, and it emits that stale value as a confident answer; give the same model an empty memory and it abstains.
arXiv:2607. 22962v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents that operate over many turns accumulate facts in an external memory store and reuse them as premises for downstream reasoning.
SemVerBench is a benchmark that evaluates how well large language models (LLMs) understand and apply version-constraint resolution semantics, such as determining whether a version satisfies constraints like ^1.2.3 or >=2.0. The study finds that many models struggle with certain corner cases, with GPT‑5.1 performing poorly while Claude and Opus perform much better. The authors suggest that the failures stem from an activation/application gap rather than a lack of knowledge, and recommend that coding agents delegate version resolution to a dedicated resolver tool.
arXiv:2609.26086v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: An agentic retrieval system issues a sequence of search queries and must decide, at each step, whether the evidence collected so far is enough to stop....
The paper introduces LAST-CQ, a five-agent, training‑free, execution‑grounded framework for Text‑to‑Cypher that evaluates which components of an agentic pipeline contribute most to performance. Experiments on 2,471 live‑database queries across six backbones show that removing correction reduces execution‑BLEU by 3.1–12.3%, while substituting schema‑grounded feedback with raw error strings has negligible impact. Parallel sampling degrades quality by 10–11%, whereas failure detection and retry routing recover 91.7% of initially failed queries, highlighting that simple failure handling is more effective than sophisticated feedback or increased sampling.
arXiv:2608. 08055v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents that assist users over weeks of conversation must remember what is currently true, not merely what was once said.
arXiv:2606. 27472v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents operate over long, multi-session interactions in which facts change: a user moves, a price updates, a plan is revised.
arXiv:2607. 09691v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A modern coding agent can hold an entire repository in its context window.
arXiv:2606. 01435v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based memory systems increasingly maintain facts that evolve over time, where a recurring failure is conflict resolution: when a fact has multiple contradictory values, which should the agent return?