Papers › MINTEval: Evaluating Memory under Multi-Target Interference in Long-Horizon Agent Systems

MINTEval: Evaluating Memory under Multi-Target Interference in Long-Horizon Agent Systems

18 May 2026arXiv:2605.18565added by Syntology

Hyunji Lee, Justin Chih-Yao Chen, Joykirat Singh, Zaid Khan, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Mohit Bansal

Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).

Real-world agents operate over long and evolving horizons, where information is repeatedly updated and may interfere across memories, requiring accurate recall and aggregated reasoning over multiple pieces of information. However, existing benchmarks focus on static, independent recall and fail to capture these dynamic interactions between evolving memories. In this paper, we study how current memory-augmented agents perform in realistic, interference-heavy, long-horizon settings across diverse domains and question types. We introduce MINTEval (Long-Horizon Memory under INTerference Evaluation), a benchmark featuring (1) long, highly interconnected contexts with frequently updated information that induces substantial interference, (2) diverse domains (state tracking, multi-turn dialogue, Wikipedia revisions, and GitHub commits), enabling evaluation of domain generalization, and (3) diverse question types that assess robustness to interference, including (i) single-target recall tasks requiring retrieval of a specific target from long contexts, and (ii) multi-target aggregation tasks requiring reasoning over multiple relevant pieces of information. Overall, MINTEval has 15.6k question-answering pairs over long-horizon contexts averaging 138.8k tokens and extending up to 1.8M tokens per instance. We evaluate 7 representative systems, including vanilla long-context LLMs, RAG, and memory-augmented agent frameworks. Across all systems, we observe consistently low performance (avg. 27.9% accuracy), especially on questions requiring aggregated reasoning over multiple pieces of evidence. Our analysis shows that performance is primarily limited by retrieval and memory construction. Furthermore, current memory systems struggle to recall and reason over earlier facts that are revised or interfered with by subsequent context, with accuracy degrading as the number of intervening updates increases.

PaperPDFCode Syntology ran

In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.

Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2605.18565")

Code

Syntology Ran 6 of 6 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran · honoured contract; 2 ran · violated contract; 2 ran · our draft was wrong.

By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 6 samples from 1 repository, 6 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

amy-hyunji/MINTEval found in paper text by Syntology report

Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

6 samples harvested; 6 ran; 2 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

2ran · honoured contract
2ran · violated contract
2ran · our draft was wrong

Licence: 6 of the 6 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from amy-hyunji/MINTEval. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

calculate_metrics amy-hyunji/MINTEval/src/mem_alpha/memalpha/llm_agent/metrics.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · our draft was wrong no licence file found · pointer only · c9e9a810f3e053fb · report
drqa_exact_match_score amy-hyunji/MINTEval/src/mem_alpha/memalpha/llm_agent/metrics.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · violated contract no licence file found · pointer only · 74bed637b1da322f · report
drqa_metric_max_over_ground_truths amy-hyunji/MINTEval/src/mem_alpha/memalpha/llm_agent/metrics.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · honoured contract no licence file found · pointer only · 76fd65154fdff253 · report
f1_score amy-hyunji/MINTEval/src/mem_alpha/memalpha/llm_agent/metrics.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · honoured contract no licence file found · pointer only · 9fba68468dc933e9 · report
normalize_answer amy-hyunji/MINTEval/src/mem_alpha/memalpha/llm_agent/metrics.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · our draft was wrong fingerprinted no licence file found · pointer only · 3b3fe5d04eaa0d33 · report
substring_exact_match_score amy-hyunji/MINTEval/src/mem_alpha/memalpha/llm_agent/metrics.py found in paper text by Syntology ran · violated contract no licence file found · pointer only · 1a7f161837f87016 · report

Results from the paper

The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2605.18565, was issued in May 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections