Papers
arxiv:2605.26302

Your Agents Are Aging Too: Agent Lifespan Engineering for Deployed Systems

Published on May 25
· Submitted by
Jianing Zhu
on May 28
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

Long-lived AI agents require lifespan evaluation and mechanism-level diagnosis beyond initial performance testing to ensure reliability over time.

AI-generated summary

Long-lived AI agents are increasingly deployed as persistent operational systems, yet they are still evaluated like freshly initialized models. Day-one benchmarks miss a basic systems question: how long does an agent remain reliable after deployment? Even when model weights are frozen, an agent's effective state keeps changing as it compresses interaction history, retrieves from a growing memory store, revises facts after updates, and undergoes routine maintenance. Reliability therefore becomes a lifespan property of the full agent harness, not only a snapshot property of the base model. We introduce AgingBench, a longitudinal reliability benchmark for agent lifespan engineering: measuring not only whether deployed agents degrade, but what form the degradation takes and where repair should target. AgingBench organizes agent aging into four mechanisms: compression aging, interference aging, revision aging, and maintenance aging. To diagnose these failures, AgingBench uses temporal dependency graphs and paired counterfactual probes that produce diagnostic profiles for the write, retrieval, and utilization stages of the memory pipeline. Across 7 scenarios, 14 models, multiple memory policies, and both runner-controlled and autonomous agents, over ~400 runs spanning 8 - 200 sessions show that agent aging is not one-dimensional: behavioral tests can remain clean while factual precision decays; derived-state tracking can collapse sharply within a single model; and the same wrong answer can require different repairs depending on what the diagnostic profile points to. These results suggest that reliable agent deployment requires lifespan evaluation, mechanism-level diagnosis, and stage-targeted repair, not only stronger day-one models.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter

AgingBench is built around a central observation: deployed agents do not stay static after launch. Even with frozen weights, their effective state keeps evolving through memory compression, retrieval, revision, and maintenance. We call the resulting long-horizon degradation phenomenon agent aging.

More broadly, we view this as part of a larger systems problem we call Agent Lifespan Engineering (ALE): studying how agents behave, drift, fail, and should be maintained across extended deployment rather than only at day 1.

AgingBench serves as a benchmark foundation for this space. We organize aging into four mechanisms: compression, interference, revision, and maintenance aging, use temporal DAGs for session index, and apply counterfactual probes to diagnose which stage of the memory pipeline (write/retrieve/utilize/store) should our repaired target for.

Welcome to find more in our companion post:
X: https://x.com/Jianing9810/status/2059505235865780720

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2605.26302
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2605.26302 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2605.26302 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2605.26302 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.