CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Jun 10, 2026

Deployment-Time Memorization in Foundation-Model Agents

arXiv AI Archived Jun 10, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2606.10062v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Foundation-model agents are increasingly long-lived systems that remember users across interactions, making memorization an explicit deployment-time function rather than solely a property of model weights. Existing work addresses parametric memorization or audits fixed memory configurations, but does not characterize how memory-design choices jointly shape personalization utility, extraction risk, and deletion fidelity. We study this surface as dep

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 8 Jun 2026] Deployment-Time Memorization in Foundation-Model Agents Lei (Rachel)Chen, Guilin Zhang, Kai Zhao, Dalmo Cirne, Andy Olsen, Xu Chu, Zeke Miller, Alet Blanken, Amine Anoun, Jerry Ting Foundation-model agents are increasingly long-lived systems that remember users across interactions, making memorization an explicit deployment-time function rather than solely a property of model weights. Existing work addresses parametric memorization or audits fixed memory configurations, but does not characterize how memory-design choices jointly shape personalization utility, extraction risk, and deletion fidelity. We study this surface as deployment-time memorization, formulating agent memory as a privacy-utility frontier measured by Personalization Recall (PR) and Adversarial Extraction Rate (AER), and sweeping three memory-design knobs: summarization aggressiveness, retrieval breadth (k), and deletion mode. We further introduce the Forgetting Residue Score (FRS) to quantify whether deleted information remains recoverable from derived memory tiers. On LongMemEval, key-fact summarization reduces canary extraction by 76% on Gemma 3 12B and 64% on GPT-4o-mini while preserving nearly all personalization recall; critically, once content is compressed away, increasing k no longer restores leakage. The same compression, however, induces a deletion-fidelity failure: raw-only deletion leaves derived summary copies recoverable in approximately 20% of instances, and only full-pipeline purge or tombstone redaction drives worst-tier residue to zero. Together, these results establish that persistent agent memory must be evaluated as a first-class memorization mechanism -- assessed by what it helps agents recall, what it makes extractable, and what it can truly erase. Comments: 4 pages, ICML MemFM 2026 Workshop Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA) Cite as: arXiv:2606.10062 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2606.10062v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.10062 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Lei Chen [view email] [v1] Mon, 8 Jun 2026 18:38:41 UTC (56 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-06 Change to browse by: cs cs.MA 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
    Jun 10, 2026
    Archived
    Jun 10, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗