PreprintCited by 0Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Stratum: Repository Memory for Coding Agents Beyond the Context Window

Open access
Sehgal, Yuvraj, Panahandeh, Mahsa, Ezzati-Jivan, Naser·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Context windows have grown a thousand-fold, yet coding agents still start every session with no memory of their past work. They re-read files, retry failed approaches, and forget root causes they established hours earlier. This is not a context-length problem but a memory-architecture problem. Our hypothesis: coding agents need persistent, experience-aware repository memory, so that knowledge survives from one session to the next. Three measurements on real repositories motivate the design. First, mid-size projects already exceed the largest production context windows, and storing knowledge inside the model's key-value (KV) cache costs $10^4$ to $10^5$ times more bytes than storing it as indexed text. Second, across 752 real bug-fix commits, the median fix edits two files, and these files plus their direct imports amount to less than 10% of the repository; the bottleneck is selection, not capacity. Third, even with transitive import reachability and test links, 47% of co-edited file pairs remain structurally disconnected; the knowledge needed for selection must be mined from history and experience. We sketch Stratum, a tiered memory that lives with the repository and serves it through page-safe tools: every response states what was returned, what remains, and what it cost. Retrieval over a store of one million nodes takes 1.7 ms at the median. In a multi-session experiment on eight real bugs, a fresh agent that inherited a prior session's memory, written by a different model, identified the root-cause file in 21 of 24 trials versus 6 of 24 for a retrieval-only baseline (Fisher $p<10^{-4}$), at 4.5x lower median token cost. With the notes of all eight investigations pooled in one store, success remained 8/8.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2610.36153

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Authors
Sehgal, Y., Panahandeh, M., & Ezzati-Jivan, N.
Affiliations
  • Brock University (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7224101438
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
coding agents, persistent memory, context window, knowledge retention, root cause identification, token cost reduction, knowledge graph retrieval

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review