LongMINT: Evaluating Memory under Multi-Target Interference in Long-Horizon Agent Systems
For researchers developing memory-augmented AI agents, this benchmark reveals critical limitations in handling dynamic, interference-heavy contexts that existing benchmarks fail to capture.
The paper introduces LongMINT, a benchmark for evaluating memory-augmented agents under realistic long-horizon settings with multi-target interference. Across 7 systems, average accuracy is only 27.9%, with performance degrading as intervening updates increase.
Real-world agents operate over long and evolving horizons, where information is repeatedly updated and may interfere across memories, requiring accurate recall and aggregated reasoning over multiple pieces of information. However, existing benchmarks focus on static, independent recall and fail to capture these dynamic interactions between evolving memories. In this paper, we study how current memory-augmented agents perform in realistic, interference-heavy, long-horizon settings across diverse domains and question types. We introduce LongMINT (Long-Horizon Memory under INTerference), a benchmark featuring (1) long, highly interconnected contexts with frequently updated information that induces substantial interference, (2) diverse domains (state tracking, multi-turn dialogue, Wikipedia revisions, and GitHub commits), enabling evaluation of domain generalization, and (3) diverse question types that assess robustness to interference, including (i) single-target recall tasks requiring retrieval of a specific target from long contexts, and (ii) multi-target aggregation tasks requiring reasoning over multiple relevant pieces of information. Overall, LongMINT has 15.6k question-answering pairs over long-horizon contexts averaging 138.8k tokens and extending up to 1.8M tokens per instance. We evaluate 7 representative systems, including vanilla long-context LLMs, RAG, and memory-augmented agent frameworks. Across all systems, we observe consistently low performance (avg. 27.9% accuracy), especially on questions requiring aggregated reasoning over multiple pieces of evidence. Our analysis shows that performance is primarily limited by retrieval and memory construction. Furthermore, current memory systems struggle to recall and reason over earlier facts that are later revised or interfered with by subsequent context, with performance degrading as the number of intervening updates increases.