Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper identifies a critical gap in current cognitive architectures like CoALA and JEPA: the lack of a distinct Knowledge layer with appropriate persistence semantics, leading to factual claims being treated like episodic memories. The authors survey existing memory systems and find converging evidence for this architectural gap. They propose a four-layer decomposition (Knowledge, Memory, Wisdom, Intelligence) with distinct persistence semantics for each layer and provide Python and Rust implementations to demonstrate feasibility.
Current AI architectures conflate facts and experiences, leading to nonsensical cognitive decay of factual knowledge.
The two most influential cognitive architecture frameworks for AI agents, CoALA [21] and JEPA [12], both lack an explicit Knowledge layer with its own persistence semantics. This gap produces a category error: systems apply cognitive decay to factual claims, or treat facts and experiences with identical update mechanics. We survey persistence semantics across existing memory systems and identify eight convergence points, from Karpathy's LLM Knowledge Base [10] to the BEAM benchmark's near-zero contradiction-resolution scores [22], all pointing to related architectural gaps. We propose a four-layer decom position (Knowledge, Memory, Wisdom, Intelligence) where each layer has fundamentally different persistence semantics: indefinite supersession, Ebbinghaus decay, evidence-gated revision, and ephemeral inference respectively. Companion implementations in Python and Rust demonstrate the architectural separation is feasible. We borrow terminology from cognitive science as a useful analogy (the Knowledge/Memory distinction echoes Tulving's trichotomy), but our layers are engineering constructs justified by persistence-semantics requirements, not by neural architecture. We argue that these distinctions demand distinct persistence semantics in engineering implementations, and that no current framework or system provides this.