When Does Belief-Based Agent Memory Help? Reliability-Conditional Updating and Provenance-Capped Poisoning Defense

Abstract

We investigate when belief-based memory actually improves large language model (LLM) agents. Our vehicle is Nous, a long-term memory architecture that represents each entity-attribute pair as a categorical probability distribution updated through closed-form Bayesian inference, with information-theoretic surprise driving belief revision and entropy-based forgetting. A controlled ablation on the LoCoMo benchmark shows that Bayesian belief updating alone provides little benefit over naive last-write-wins because existing conversational memory benchmarks rarely contain contradictory or differently reliable evidence. We then introduce reliability-conditioned updating, estimating per-observation reliability from epistemic language, and show on a controlled contradiction benchmark that belief updating substantially outperforms last-write-wins and raw-memory retrieval when observations differ in trustworthiness. Because content-derived reliability is itself vulnerable to manipulation, we further propose provenance-capped belief updating, where trust is bounded by source provenance rather than textual confidence. Under controlled memory-poisoning experiments, this approach resists volumetric poisoning attacks while revealing the utility costs and implementation requirements of provenance-aware memory. Finally, we quantify a 27.5-point discrepancy between strict token-F1 and LLM-as-judge evaluation on identical outputs, highlighting important reproducibility concerns for long-term memory benchmarks. Our results suggest that probabilistic belief-based memory is most beneficial in environments requiring reasoning over conflicting and differently trustworthy evidence, rather than conventional conversational recall alone.