Oded Margalit

Yanki Margalit, Nurit Cohen-Inger, Erni Avram et al.

Multi-agent LLM environments require robust mechanisms for shared knowledge management. This paper formalizes the fleet-memory problem and identifies four foundational failure modes: unauthorized leakage, stale propagation, contradiction persistence, and provenance collapse. To address these, we define explicit systems-level primitives: scoped retrieval, temporal supersession, provenance tracking, and policy-governed memory propagation. These primitives are implemented in MemClaw, a production multi-tenant memory service, and evaluated via ArgusFleet, a reproducible harness testing four governance dimensions. Rather than a baseline comparison, this study measures a live production service, emphasizing real-world architectural insights and negative results. Key Evaluation Results Provenance: Successfully reconstructed 100% of depth-four derivation chains with correct writer identity at sub-second per-hop latency. Propagation: Demonstrated high intra-fleet visibility with zero cross-fleet leakage. Under strong write mode, write-to-visible latency was optimized to a single search round-trip. Production Architectural Issues Discovered Asymmetric Scope Enforcement: Tenant isolation held, but sub-tenant scope was initially bypassed on direct GET-by-id requests for agent-scoped credentials (disclosed and remediated during the study). Pipeline Ordering Conflict: While contradiction supersession works for admitted writes, a synchronous near-duplicate gate can prematurely reject contradictory writes before the asynchronous contradiction detector can evaluate them. Conclusion: Long-context retrieval alone is insufficient for production multi-agent memory. Governed shared memory demands explicit systems-level abstractions, and live evaluation is vital to expose enforcement and pipeline-ordering failures missed by design-only treatments.

Achiya Elyasaf, Eitan Farchi, Oded Margalit et al.

We present a new model-based approach for testing systems that use sequences of actions and assertions as test vectors. Our solution includes a method for quantifying testing quality, a tool for generating high-quality test suites based on the coverage criteria we propose, and a framework for assessing risks. For testing quality, we propose a method that specifies generalized coverage criteria over sequences of actions, which extends previous approaches. Our publicly available tool demonstrates how to extract effective test suites from test plans based on these criteria. We also present a Bayesian approach for measuring the probabilities of bugs or risks, and show how this quantification can help achieve an informed balance between exploitation and exploration in testing. Finally, we provide an empirical evaluation demonstrating the effectiveness of our tool in finding bugs, assessing risks, and achieving coverage.