Let the Code Write the Memory: Evolving Agent Memory Programs That Beat Hand-Designed Systems at a Third of the Cost

MAPE evolves full memory programs from scratch, hitting +12% accuracy over manual baselines at 35% serving cost. Two transferable patterns emerge: keep raw conversations, compose evidence by query intent.

Imagine you're organizing a massive filing cabinet. You could hire an expensive consultant to read every document, write summaries, and file them under neat categories — or you could keep the originals, build a clever index, and only call the consultant when someone actually asks a question. MAPE discovers, through automated program evolution, that the second strategy dominates. The consultant's summaries lose details the originals preserve, and smart retrieval at query time beats expensive preprocessing. The committed claim: a program-evolution framework can discover agent memory architectures from minimal seed code that outperform hand-designed memory systems by up to 12 percentage points in accuracy while consuming only 35% of the serving cost. This isn't a marginal SOTA bump — it's a methodological shift from human-designed memory pipelines to evolved ones, with the evolved designs revealing generalizable patterns humans hadn't prioritized. MAPE works through a standardized lifecycle interface — init, encode, retrieve, respond — and an iterative diagnosis-proposal loop. An LLM examines failure cases from the current best program, proposes code mutations, and the system evaluates variants on LoCoMo and LongMemEval benchmarks. The key architectural insight is that this is program synthesis applied to agent memory, not hyperparameter search. Entire code blocks get rewritten, not just knobs tuned. The search space is the space of possible Python programs implementing the lifecycle interface. Two design patterns recur across evolved solutions and survive ablation. First, retaining raw conversation transcripts as retrievable evidence outperforms systems that only store extracted memories — summaries lose signal. Second, composing retrieved evidence according to query intent before passing it to the answering LLM substantially helps. The composition module is so robust that transplanting it into five existing memory systems (MemoryBank, A-Mem, Mem0, MemGPT, Archon) improves accuracy across all five. That's the strongest validation signal in the paper: the discovered module transfers. The integrity picture is solid for an agent-systems paper. Two established community benchmarks (LoCoMo, LongMemEval) provide the evaluation surface. Five named baselines are compared head-to-head. Transfer is tested across serving backbones (not just one LLM) and across benchmarks. Ablations isolate the contribution of individual components. Code is released. The main caveat: no pre-registration, and the evolution loop itself involves the LLM proposing mutations — meaning the search could overfit to benchmark idiosyncrasies, though cross-benchmark transfer mitigates this concern. The cost-accuracy tradeoff finding is perhaps the most practically significant result. When the search objective includes serving cost alongside accuracy, evolved programs shift computation away from expensive LLM-based memory construction toward selective processing at query time — and retain competitive accuracy. This is the kind of insight that changes how practitioners budget compute in deployed agent systems. What's missing tells you where the field goes next. MAPE evolves memory for conversational agents on static benchmarks. The obvious successor experiments are streaming/online settings where memories must be updated continuously, and multi-agent scenarios where memory is shared. The authors likely didn't run these because the benchmarks don't exist yet in a form compatible with their lifecycle interface — building them is a paper unto itself.