Papers › The Sleeping Agent: What Gist-Based Context Compression Loses and Why
The Sleeping Agent: What Gist-Based Context Compression Loses and Why
Nicholas E. Kyrkewood
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Gist-based context compression---summarising older conversation history into compact representations---is a common approach in long-horizon language model agents, yet its effect on different types of memory retrieval is poorly understood. We use Salience-Weighted Consolidation (SWC), a biologically-inspired compression framework motivated by sleep-based memory consolidation, as a diagnostic probe to study when gist compression helps and when it hurts. SWC scores conversation history by salience, partitions it into priority tiers, and applies structured gist abstraction to mid-priority content. Evaluating four conditions on all ten LoCoMo conversations---1,935 matched text-only questions in total, 1,501 used in the primary aggregate after excluding Category 5 (adversarial) questions---at temperature 0, we find a consistent task-type interaction: gist compression substantially outperforms truncation on multi-hop reasoning and single-hop factual questions, but temporal questions remain substantially harder under compression, with compressed conditions scoring well below the full-context reference on the conversations where both are evaluated. We trace this failure to a specific mechanism: the gist abstraction prompt preserves relational and event structure while discarding dates and times. A preservation analysis across all ten conversations confirms the mechanism: an approximately 20-fold increase in temporal expression preservation (3.05% to 62.39%) with a one-sentence prompt modification, while named entity and event preservation rates barely change (x1.02 and x1.11), demonstrating that the fix is a precision instrument. The prompt modification recovers +0.314 [0.254, 0.375] judge accuracy on category-2 (temporal) questions in the matched set. Code and results: https://github.com/kyrkewood/sleeping-agent.
In Syntology 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="2608.11775")
Code
Syntology Ran 12 of 12 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 12 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 12 samples from 1 repository, 12 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
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
12 samples harvested; 12 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 12 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 kyrkewood/sleeping-agent. “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.
b59e234b597bb369 · report
b2bc687a414410e6 · report
ad7db7e3f8b5a12e · report
d20258d100d4f4e6 · report
8262fc4ce5c1e69f · report
1b89278c4b21518c · report
01b7a6026e5e2bc4 · report
a1c7c0dc37ef0b5f · report
b004b1ccc2da5306 · report
04171c79b5269391 · report
0d2abaefbf774fd7 · report
f1c2f575210e2fef · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.11775, was issued in August 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