Procedural Memory Under Change: Reuse and Interference in Controlled Web Tasks
Updated 8 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026
paper_01M294GK9R56NHYZ5CE2ZZAFDB
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
- T1 · 8 h ago
- arXiv
- 2609.09774
- T1 · 8 h ago
- Category
- cs.AI
- T1 · 8 h ago
Abstract
Procedural memory lets language agents reuse successful routines, but reuse presumes that a stored routine remains applicable. We study what happens when that presumption is deliberately violated. The study combines a retrospective, human-assisted interface-adaptation case from BrowserGym TimeWarp with controlled frozen-memory comparisons on synthetic shopping decisions. During the documented WebShop V1-V6 development path, interface-specific code was adapted while the separately stored high-level procedure was not reported to change; this phase does not constitute an autonomous memory-agent evaluation. In the controlled phase, an early pilot produced one task on which two memory conditions selected a more expensive item while the no-memory condition selected the reference minimum. Follow-up probes did not establish a recurring row-order or identity-binding pattern. We then tested four forms of mismatch: changed quantities, a different evidence representation, a conflict between local and global optimization, and distributed promotion evidence, across 32 formal cells. Each cell used one temperature-0 generation with the same local qwen3:8b configuration and no adaptive retry. Across these pairs, none of the predefined diagnostic interference signatures appeared on the tasks for which they were defined when current-task evidence was explicit and sufficient. The result identifies a tested region of non-interference: a procedural memory can be mismatched without becoming behaviorally disruptive. It does not establish general safety or a mechanism. The remaining question is which additional conditions turn applicability mismatch into observable, memory-caused error.
Authors 1
Yanze Cao
Specification
- Official page
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 8 h agohigh
- Arxiv announce type
- new
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 8 h agohigh
- arXiv id
- 2609.09774
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 8 h agohigh
- Categories
- cs.AI
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 8 h agohigh
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 8 h agohigh
- Primary category
- cs.AI
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 8 h agohigh
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 8 h agohigh
Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →
Provenance
Attributed facts
9
Source tiers
T19
Freshest observation
8 h ago
Conflicts
None
No models linked to this paper yet.
- Authors
- Yanze Cao
As of
Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.
Claim history · Abstract
Abstractabstract1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Procedural memory lets language agents reuse successful routines, but reuse presumes that a stored routine remains applicable. We study what happens when that presumption is deliberately violated. The study combines a retrospective, human-assisted interface-adaptation case from BrowserGym TimeWarp with controlled frozen-memory comparisons on synthetic shopping decisions. During the documented WebShop V1-V6 development path, interface-specific code was adapted while the separately stored high-level procedure was not reported to change; this phase does not constitute an autonomous memory-agent evaluation. In the controlled phase, an early pilot produced one task on which two memory conditions selected a more expensive item while the no-memory condition selected the reference minimum. Follow-up probes did not establish a recurring row-order or identity-binding pattern. We then tested four forms of mismatch: changed quantities, a different evidence representation, a conflict between local and global optimization, and distributed promotion evidence, across 32 formal cells. Each cell used one temperature-0 generation with the same local qwen3:8b configuration and no adaptive retry. Across these pairs, none of the predefined diagnostic interference signatures appeared on the tasks for which they were defined when current-task evidence was explicit and sufficient. The result identifies a tested region of non-interference: a procedural memory can be mismatched without becoming behaviorally disruptive. It does not establish general safety or a mechanism. The remaining question is which additional conditions turn applicability mismatch into observable, memory-caused error. | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →
New paper: Procedural Memory Under Change: Reuse and Interference in Controlled Web Tasks
arxiv
| Source | Document | Type | Tier | Last observed | Snapshots |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv (Atom API + RSS) | rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.AI | feed | T1· Official | 59 min ago | 2 |
Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.