AuthorsSamuel Sameer Tanguturi
TL;DR
ATANT v1.1 uses a 7-property continuity rubric and a coverage matrix to show 0.43 / 7 mean property coverage across existing memory benchmarks, despite ATANT v1.0 reaching 96% on its own scale.
Read our summary here, or open the publisher PDF on the next tab.
THE PROBLEM
ATANT v1.1 shows that across seven existing evaluations the mean continuity property coverage is only 0.43 / 7, with a median of 1.0 / 7.
Systems are being called continuous based on benchmarks like LOCOMO and LongMemEval, so downstream agents inherit brittle memory behavior and undetected regressions in persistence, update handling, and reconstruction.
HOW IT WORKS
ATANT v1.1 uses the 7 v1.0 continuity properties, the 10 checkpoints, the property coverage matrix, and the Kenotic v1.0 reference implementation to compare seven benchmarks cell by cell.
You can think of ATANT v1.1 as a compatibility matrix between continuity and existing tests, like a hardware spec sheet mapping which ports each device actually exposes.
This lets ATANT v1.1 separate continuity from long context or retrieval, enabling evaluations that detect regressions and architectural changes that a plain context window or substring scoring cannot see.
DIAGRAM
This diagram shows how ATANT v1.1 maps each continuity property against LOCOMO, LongMemEval, BEAM, MemoryBench, Zep eval, MemGPT Letta, and RULER.
DIAGRAM
This diagram shows how ATANT v1.1 evaluates benchmarks, computes coverage scores, and calibrates with LOCOMO and ATANT cumulative scale.
PROCESS
Structural Analysis of Existing Memory Evaluations
ATANT v1.1 inspects LOCOMO, LongMemEval, BEAM, MemoryBench, Zep eval, MemGPT Letta, and RULER using the 7 v1.0 continuity properties and 10 checkpoints.
Property Coverage Matrix
ATANT v1.1 builds a 7 by 7 property coverage matrix, assigning ✓, ⊚, or × per cell and computing scores like 1.0 / 7 and 0.43 / 7.
Kenotic on LOCOMO Result
ATANT v1.1 runs the Kenotic v1.0 reference implementation on LOCOMO, obtaining 8.8% substring accuracy on 476 items from 3 conversations.
Reporting Standard Recommendation
ATANT v1.1 recommends reporting ATANT compliance levels such as Cumulative scale 96% alongside retrieval and long context benchmarks for any continuity claim.
KEY CONTRIBUTIONS
Structural critique of seven memory evaluations
ATANT v1.1 analyzes LOCOMO, LongMemEval, BEAM, MemoryBench, Zep eval, MemGPT Letta, and RULER using the 7 v1.0 continuity properties and 10 checkpoints, finding no benchmark above 2 / 7 coverage.
Property coverage matrix
ATANT v1.1 introduces a 7 by 7 property coverage matrix with ✓, ⊚, × scoring, yielding a median of 1.0 / 7 and mean 0.43 / 7 across existing evaluations.
Kenotic on LOCOMO calibration pair
ATANT v1.1 reports Kenotic v1.0 reference implementation scoring 8.8% on LOCOMO versus 96% on ATANT cumulative scale, an 87 point divergence demonstrating different measured properties.
RESULTS
ATANT cumulative scale
96% (1,761/1,835)
+87.2 points over LOCOMO substring 8.8%
LOCOMO substring score
8.8%
vs ATANT cumulative scale 96%
Median coverage score
1.0/7
benchmark median across seven evaluations
Mean coverage score
0.43/7
average properties covered per benchmark
ATANT v1.1 evaluates the Kenotic v1.0 reference implementation on ATANT cumulative scale and LOCOMO, and computes property coverage scores across seven benchmarks, proving that continuity requires ATANT v1.0 style evaluation rather than retrieval or long context metrics.
BENCHMARK
ATANT v1.1 evaluates the Kenotic v1.0 reference implementation on ATANT cumulative scale and LOCOMO, and computes property coverage scores across seven benchmarks, proving that continuity requires ATANT v1.0 style evaluation rather than retrieval or long context metrics.
BENCHMARK
Score column from Table 1 (properties covered out of 7).
KEY INSIGHT
ATANT v1.1 shows the Kenotic v1.0 reference implementation scoring 96% on ATANT cumulative scale yet only 8.8% on LOCOMO substring accuracy.
This is counterintuitive because many practitioners assumed LOCOMO measured continuity, but the 87 point divergence reveals that LOCOMO and ATANT v1.0 target fundamentally different properties.
WHY IT MATTERS
ATANT v1.1 gives researchers a concrete way to see which continuity properties are actually measured when they cite LOCOMO, LongMemEval, BEAM, MemoryBench, Zep eval, MemGPT Letta, or RULER.
Builders can now separate continuity claims from retrieval or long context claims, designing architectures and benchmarks that explicitly target missing properties like update handling, reconstruction, and model independence.
Nikhil Verma
· 2026
Focus Agent adds start_focus, complete_focus, a persistent Knowledge block, and an optimized Persistent Bash plus String-Replace Editor scaffold to actively compress context during long software-engineering tasks. On five hard SWE-bench Lite instances against a Baseline ReAct agent, Focus Agent achieves 22.7% token reduction (14.9M → 11.5M) while matching 3/5 = 60% task success.
Xingyu Lyu, Jianfeng He et al.
· 2026
ADAM combines Anchor extraction, Distribution estimation, Anchor selection, and Query generation to adaptively probe agent memory via an auxiliary generator and entropy based selection. On the EHRAgent benchmark with Llama2-7b-chat, ADAM reaches EQ=77 and ASR=1.00, compared to MEXTRA’s EQ=44 and ASR=0.89.
Shannan Yan, Jingchen Ni et al.
· 2026
AdaMem organizes dialogue history into Working Memory, Episodic Memory, Persona Memory, and Graph Memory coordinated by a Memory Agent, Research Agent, and Working Agent. On LoCoMo with GPT-4.1-mini, AdaMem achieves 44.65 F1 overall, beating the best baseline LangMem at 41.76 F1 by +2.89.
Answers use this explainer on Memory Papers.
Checking…