| --- |
| pretty_name: "AtMem Memory Integrity and Continuity Evidence" |
| license: apache-2.0 |
| language: |
| - en |
| tags: |
| - agent-memory |
| - llm-agents |
| - benchmark |
| - evaluation |
| - provenance |
| - crash-recovery |
| - tabular |
| configs: |
| - config_name: integrity_categories |
| data_files: |
| - split: test |
| path: data/integrity_categories.csv |
| - config_name: integrity_metrics |
| data_files: |
| - split: test |
| path: data/integrity_metrics.csv |
| - config_name: continuity_no_fault |
| data_files: |
| - split: test |
| path: data/continuity_no_fault.csv |
| - config_name: continuity_fault |
| data_files: |
| - split: test |
| path: data/continuity_fault.csv |
| - config_name: continuity_acceptance |
| data_files: |
| - split: test |
| path: data/continuity_acceptance.csv |
| - config_name: continuity_live_pilot |
| data_files: |
| - split: test |
| path: data/continuity_live_pilot.csv |
| --- |
| |
| # AtMem memory integrity and continuity evidence |
|
|
| This dataset accompanies **Beyond Recall Accuracy: Evaluating Integrity and |
| Crash Continuity in Persistent Memory for Tool-Using Language Agents** by |
| Javad Taghia, AtMem.Ai Lab. |
|
|
| [Open the interactive results Space](https://huggingface.co/spaces/atmem/memory-integrity-continuity) |
| · [Read the PDF](https://huggingface.co/datasets/atmem/memory-integrity-continuity/blob/main/paper/atmem-memory-integrity-and-continuity.pdf) |
| · [AtMem source](https://github.com/aetna000/atmem) |
| · [External benchmark submission](https://github.com/iluxu/memory-integrity-benchmark/pull/1) |
|
|
| ## What is measured |
|
|
| The publication separates two questions: |
|
|
| 1. **Memory integrity:** can untrusted observations, summaries, repetition, or |
| prior agent outputs silently acquire factual or procedural authority? |
| 2. **Operational continuity:** after a crash, can an agent distinguish a saved |
| success, a queryable external effect, a valid idempotent retry, and an outcome |
| that must stop for confirmation? |
|
|
| ## Headline results |
|
|
| | Evidence | Result | Correct interpretation | |
| |---|---:|---| |
| | Integrity trials | 700 | 400 PASS, 300 NOT_REPRESENTABLE, 0 FAIL, 0 ERROR | |
| | Factual contamination | 0/300 | Within represented scored probes | |
| | Secret retention | 0/100 | Within canonical benchmark scoring surfaces | |
| | Taint preservation | 100/100 | Direct-parent derivations in Category D | |
| | No-fault parity | 18/18 requests in every arm | One recorded-response trajectory | |
| | Repeat request after interrupted commit | baseline 1, AtMem 0, AtFlows 1, both 0 | AtMem avoided an uncertain redispatch in one fault cell | |
| |
| `NOT_REPRESENTABLE` is not a pass or failure. The harness supplies caller labels, |
| not AtMem-issued review authority, for Categories A, H, and I. Category D uses |
| native-record-ID matching and remains pending upstream interpretation. |
|
|
| ## Repository layout |
|
|
| - `data/`: small CSV tables rendered by the Dataset Viewer. |
| - `evidence/integrity/`: exact 700-trial integrity result bundle. |
| - `evidence/continuity/`: exact installed acceptance, replay, fault, and live-pilot bundles. |
| - `paper/`: PDF, LaTeX source, and bibliography. |
| - `provenance/`: top-level checksums and publication manifest. |
|
|
| ## Limitations |
|
|
| This is not a general security, compliance, retrieval-quality, or exactly-once |
| execution claim. The fresh four-arm pilot contains one exposed task per arm and |
| cannot support causal inference. The external integrity pull request is open and |
| is not an accepted upstream leaderboard entry. See the paper and bundled |
| `LIMITATIONS.md` for the complete claim boundary. |
|
|
| ## Paper |
|
|
| The bundled PDF is the canonical paper for this Hugging Face release. No arXiv |
| identifier has been assigned. If the paper is submitted to arXiv later, this |
| card can link the resulting Hugging Face Paper page without changing the dataset. |
|
|
| ## Citation |
|
|
| ```bibtex |
| @article{taghia2026beyond, |
| title={Beyond Recall Accuracy: Evaluating Integrity and Crash Continuity in Persistent Memory for Tool-Using Language Agents}, |
| author={Taghia, Javad}, |
| year={2026}, |
| note={AtMem.Ai Lab; Hugging Face research release} |
| } |
| ``` |
|
|
| ## OpenClaw lost-acknowledgement supplement (27 September 2026) |
|
|
| [Read the paper](paper/openclaw-lost-ack/atmem-openclaw-lost-ack-retry.pdf) · [LaTeX source](paper/openclaw-lost-ack/main.tex) · [Evidence and reproduction](openclaw-lost-ack-20260927/README.md) |
|
|
| **When the Write Lands but the Acknowledgement Is Lost: A Reproducible Memory-Retry Test in OpenClaw**, Javad Taghia, AtMem.Ai Lab. |
|
|
| Five isolated bridge crash trials, three real OpenClaw gateway crash trials, and one no-fault gateway control passed. After the completed write's response was withheld and the backend killed, the retry returned the original record as `already_stored`; read-back showed the complete original fact and one active record. Gateway model responses were deterministic and local. This tests exact-content retry after a completed write, not partial transactions or power loss. The supplement preserves two earlier CLI setup failures separately and does not change the earlier study's results. |
|
|
