CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Apr 15, 2026

When to Forget: A Memory Governance Primitive

arXiv AI Archived Apr 15, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2604.12007v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agent memory systems accumulate experience but currently lack a principled operational metric for memory quality governance -- deciding which memories to trust, suppress, or deprecate as the agent's task distribution shifts. Write-time importance scores are static; dynamic management systems use LLM judgment or structural heuristics rather than outcome feedback. This paper proposes Memory Worth (MW): a two-counter per-memory signal that tracks how

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 13 Apr 2026] When to Forget: A Memory Governance Primitive Baris Simsek Agent memory systems accumulate experience but currently lack a principled operational metric for memory quality governance -- deciding which memories to trust, suppress, or deprecate as the agent's task distribution shifts. Write-time importance scores are static; dynamic management systems use LLM judgment or structural heuristics rather than outcome feedback. This paper proposes Memory Worth (MW): a two-counter per-memory signal that tracks how often a memory co-occurs with successful versus failed outcomes, providing a lightweight, theoretically grounded foundation for staleness detection, retrieval suppression, and deprecation decisions. We prove that MW converges almost surely to the conditional success probability p+(m) = Pr[y_t = +1 | m in M_t] -- the probability of task success given that memory m is retrieved -- under a stationary retrieval regime with a minimum exploration condition. Importantly, p+(m) is an associational quantity, not a causal one: it measures outcome co-occurrence rather than causal contribution. We argue this is still a useful operational signal for memory governance, and we validate it empirically in a controlled synthetic environment where ground-truth utility is known: after 10,000 episodes, the Spearman rank-correlation between Memory Worth and true utilities reaches rho = 0.89 +/- 0.02 across 20 independent seeds, compared to rho = 0.00 for systems that never update their assessments. A retrieval-realistic micro-experiment with real text and neural embedding retrieval (all-MiniLM-L6-v2) further shows stale memories crossing the low-value threshold (MW = 0.17) while specialist memories remain high-value (MW = 0.77) across 3,000 episodes. The estimator requires only two scalar counters per memory unit and can be added to architectures that already log retrievals and episode outcomes. Comments: 12 pages, 5 figures Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) ACM classes: I.2.6; I.2.11; H.3.3 Cite as: arXiv:2604.12007 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2604.12007v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.12007 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Baris Simsek [view email] [v1] Mon, 13 Apr 2026 19:54:14 UTC (582 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-04 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Apr 15, 2026
    Archived
    Apr 15, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗