Controlled knowledge updating in memory-enabled AI agents: beyond model editing and recall.

IF 3.8 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Frontiers in Big Data Pub Date : 2026-09-28 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fdata.2026.1938137
Gabriel Chavira Juárez, Eder Jahir Gonzalez Bravo, Guadalupe Esmeralda Rivera García, Javier A Arcos Espinosa, Salvador W Nava-Díaz
{"title":"Controlled knowledge updating in memory-enabled AI agents: beyond model editing and recall.","authors":"Gabriel Chavira Juárez, Eder Jahir Gonzalez Bravo, Guadalupe Esmeralda Rivera García, Javier A Arcos Espinosa, Salvador W Nava-Díaz","doi":"10.3389/fdata.2026.1938137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Large language model agents that persist across sessions, tools, users, and changing environments do more than answer isolated prompts; they accumulate state. When new evidence arrives, the central question is where that change should live: transient context, external memory, tool or workflow definitions, activation states, or model parameters. Recent benchmarks compare update mechanisms and assess memory over time, while emerging architectures coordinate multiple memory types. In this Perspective, we examine how a decision layer should select among update substrates and evaluate whether its choices remain appropriate. A controlled update is not merely a successful edit or a recalled fact; it is a decision to alter the least invasive substrate sufficient for the claim's scope, expected persistence, and evidentiary strength, including when the correct action is not to write persistent state. We propose a substrate-aware view of controlled knowledge updating organized by three principles: substrate proportionality, temporal defeasibility, and auditable continuity. This framing treats knowledge updating as a longitudinal control problem and motivates evaluation criteria that include update selection, temporal consistency, interference, reversibility, efficiency, and robustness. The resulting agenda connects memory, knowledge editing, agent evolution, and benchmarking under a single practical question: how should an agent decide what to change so that future behavior improves without accumulating uncontrolled state?</p>","PeriodicalId":52859,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Big Data","volume":"9 ","pages":"1938137"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13654771/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Big Data","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdata.2026.1938137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Large language model agents that persist across sessions, tools, users, and changing environments do more than answer isolated prompts; they accumulate state. When new evidence arrives, the central question is where that change should live: transient context, external memory, tool or workflow definitions, activation states, or model parameters. Recent benchmarks compare update mechanisms and assess memory over time, while emerging architectures coordinate multiple memory types. In this Perspective, we examine how a decision layer should select among update substrates and evaluate whether its choices remain appropriate. A controlled update is not merely a successful edit or a recalled fact; it is a decision to alter the least invasive substrate sufficient for the claim's scope, expected persistence, and evidentiary strength, including when the correct action is not to write persistent state. We propose a substrate-aware view of controlled knowledge updating organized by three principles: substrate proportionality, temporal defeasibility, and auditable continuity. This framing treats knowledge updating as a longitudinal control problem and motivates evaluation criteria that include update selection, temporal consistency, interference, reversibility, efficiency, and robustness. The resulting agenda connects memory, knowledge editing, agent evolution, and benchmarking under a single practical question: how should an agent decide what to change so that future behavior improves without accumulating uncontrolled state?

支持记忆的人工智能代理中的受控知识更新:超越模型编辑和召回。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.20%
发文量
122
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书