Skip to main content

Research documentation · 2026 preprint

Stateful Agentic Retrieval

What should an agent remember before it retrieves?

A leakage-aware study of query adaptation from chronological tool-use traces—where session state, target priors, and candidate coverage are measured separately.

qsπz
frozen querycausal stateexplicit priorrank

01 / evidence

Positive results and failure boundaries, together.

State improves the main Hermes search-query task. A separated target-frequency prior explains a larger share of the gain, while heldout tools and TAU-bench expose where it stops transferring.

Inspect every headline number →
trace / poolresetstatebest
GLM-5.1 · all0.32670.36550.5522support proxy
Kimi · all0.33400.37890.4559prior + residual

MRR@10 · BGE-M3 · closed candidate vocabulary

02 / method

One retrieval score. Three auditable signals.

01

Prefix

Keep only actions and responses observed before the target.

02

Separate

Model causal state and train-only target frequency as different signals.

03

Stress

Report candidate coverage, tool-heldout losses, and clustered uncertainty.

Follow the scoring path →

03 / boundary

This is evidence, not a memory product claim.

URL retrieval is a negative control. TAU train-only coverage averages 11.92%. Support gating can lose on cold tools. The docs keep these limits adjacent to every gain.