What Should an Agent Remember? Disentangling Retention from Retrieval in Bounded-Memory Evaluation

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

A persistent agent must decide both what to retain as information arrives and what to surface once a query appears, yet memory evaluations can confound these decisions by comparing methods that differ in both retention and selection. We build a streaming-recall benchmark crossing retention and selection rules and evaluate every condition on the same 300 seeded episodes. Holding access fixed, query-aware selection improves required-fact recall by 15.5 percentage points (95% CI: 12.8 to 18.2), whereas a mixed comparison that also changes history access reports a 68.7-point advantage, of which 53.2 points are attributable to access. Under bounded retention, query-aware, dense, and oracle selection reach the retention ceiling, and all 319 observed failures in the bounded recency condition are caused by eviction rather than ranking errors. Recall falls to 0% as targets recede sufficiently far into the past. Repeating the evaluation on SQuAD preserves the retention ceiling while showing that dense retrieval can outperform lexical retrieval on natural text. These results show that bounded-memory evaluations should hold access fixed and report retention and selection separately.