MemoryLACE: Memory Lifecycle-Aware Consolidation and Evidence Retrieval

Long-term LLM agents must preserve information across interactions while distinguishing repeated evidence, historical states, updates, and unresolved contradictions. Existing textual memory systems retrieve semantically relevant memories efficiently but often leave these relationships implicit, whereas richer structured approaches model them through global graphs, hierarchical abstractions, or reflection at greater complexity. We introduce MemoryLACE (MemLACE), a lightweight memory framework that explicitly models the lifecycle of textual evidence through sparse merge, supersession, and contradiction relations while preserving atomic natural-language memories and their provenance. Rather than retrieving memories independently, MemLACE reconstructs relation-aware evidence units that expose current, historical, supporting, and conflicting evidence for downstream reasoning. Across BEAM and StructMemEval, using open-weight and proprietary LLM backbones, MemLACE achieves the highest overall performance in same-backbone comparisons while reducing end-to-end runtime on BEAM by 66.6% relative to Hindsight, the strongest reported reflective-memory baseline. Ablation studies identify lifecycle expansion and temporal awareness as the principal contributors to these gains. Together, the results demonstrate that explicitly modeling the local lifecycle of textual evidence is sufficient to substantially improve long-term memory reasoning without requiring comprehensive knowledge graphs or global reflection.

Diagnosing Search Behavior and Failure Modes in Long-Horizon Search Agents

Deep search agents answer difficult information-seeking questions by iteratively issuing search queries to gather supporting evidence, but it remains unclear whether and how greater search effort leads to better answers. We study these questions through a trajectory-level diagnosis of long-horizon search agents. Using human-annotated document-level relevance judgments, we evaluate the evidence retrieved at each search step and separate two stages of agent behavior: what evidence an agent retrieves and how effectively it uses that evidence. This distinction further allows us to decompose failures into retrieval gaps, where the necessary evidence is never found, and utilization gaps, where relevant evidence is retrieved but not used correctly. With the retrieval model and evaluation harness held fixed, we compare six agents on BrowseComp-Plus and further validate our findings on BrowseComp with an open-web search API. Across settings, we find that search effort and answer quality are only weakly aligned. Answer accuracy is better correlated with the quality of retrieved evidence, especially cumulative retrieval recall, than with the number of searches or the amount of context consumed. Useful evidence often appears early in the trajectory, yet agents tend to continue searching, producing a long tail of low-yield retrieval steps. At the query level, exploratory reformulations remain useful, but the best-performing agents issue far fewer redundant queries. Overall, by systematically characterizing the search behavior and failure modes of long-horizon search agents, this work points to practical directions for building better deep research systems, including stronger query formulation, more effective evidence selection and context management, and stopping criteria based on whether sufficient supporting evidence has been retrieved.