Papers › MemGuard: Persisting Verifier Signals for LLM-Agent Memory Governance
MemGuard: Persisting Verifier Signals for LLM-Agent Memory Governance
Haoyu Wang, Guangyuan Dong, He Liang, Zijing Zhang, Jiachen Luo, Chuang Liu, Chao Xue, Hao Tang
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
LLM agents are moving from single-prompt use to long task streams in which reusable memory becomes a core capability for terminal, software-engineering, and web tasks. Such memory is useful only when stored experience remains reliable across hundreds of interactions, but two failure modes break that assumption in practice. The first is unreliable admission: failed trajectories,accidental successes, and misleading observations enter memory because they appear relevant, then mislead later decisions. The second is memory drift: long-running banks accumulate duplicate, stale, and conflicting records that retrieval alone cannot repair. MemGuard's key distinction is to treat verifier output not as a one-shot filter, but as persistent lifecycle metadata. It converts multi-criteria score-token verification into reward, confidence, label, and uncertainty descriptors that are attached to every candidate before activation and reused during retrieval, conflict resolution, summarization, and archival. We evaluate MemGuard on Terminal-Bench 2.0, SWE-Bench Verified, WebArena, and Mind2Web across four backbones, comparing against four memory baselines plus a verifier-only control under matched runtime budgets. Averaged over five seeds, MemGuard achieves the best success metric and lowest average steps in all 16 backbone-benchmark settings, improving over ReasoningBank, the strongest prior baseline among the memory methods we evaluate, with a largest gain of 7.9 success-rate points on WebArena, 5.6 step-success-rate points on Mind2Web, and 2.4-3.5 points on terminal and software-engineering benchmarks. Code is available at https://github.com/whyyyyy123/MemGuard.
In Syntology 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="2608.21867")
Code
Syntology Ran 14 of 22 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 8 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 4 ran · honoured contract; 2 ran · violated contract; 5 ran · our draft was wrong; 3 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 22 samples from 1 repository, 14 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
22 samples harvested; 14 ran; 4 honoured the contract we drafted; 8 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 22 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 whyyyyy123/MemGuard. “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.
1ed3295c923663a0 · report
46190085512be5a1 · report
54460377e09f4f92 · report
2d262cf10a58fb63 · report
9a4ad480d7420674 · report
f8163f6324dd61be · report
55370582150beff6 · report
f4ae4281d4257d39 · report
fcfff9d162975a44 · report
3bc79e46d07c6eb3 · report
09e53c079cc48f93 · report
0a7496e54bac1ee4 · report
0c8761b47d687424 · report
5f9acd760a957490 · report
084726e6df28f3cf · report
e4583c10b7a84975 · report
e7f0ac915b745d4f · report
fe4477a4110d856d · report
d78eac1bb02c4e9b · report
4cc9b56ca604d3d9 · report
477b35bb458ab53b · report
24882a9c1b05b99b · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2608.21867, 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