Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Explicit v.s. Implicit Memory: Exploring Multi-hop Complex Reasoning Over Personalized Information

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that multi-hop personalized reasoning is a distinct task on which explicit retrieval memory clearly beats implicit fine-tuned memory, and that a cluster-based hybrid, HybridMem, gives the best long-hop accuracy.

desk verdict A genuinely new benchmark idea for agent memory that is currently riding on an unvalidated synthetic dataset; worth refereeing, but needs validation and statistical care. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.13250 v1 pith:XE3Q5VLD submitted 2025-08-18 cs.AI cs.CLcs.IR

Zeyu Zhang , Yang Zhang , Haoran Tan , Rui Li , Xu Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.CLcs.IR
keywords personalizedagentsmemorymechanismmulti-hopreasoninglargelanguagemodelsinformationretrievalretrieval-augmentedgenerationsupervisedfine-tuninghybrid
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper introduces multi-hop personalized reasoning (MPR): questions whose answers require combining several pieces of a user's stored factual statements, with no single statement sufficient and general knowledge insufficient. To study it, the authors generate a dataset of 108,000 reasoning tasks spanning 2 to 10 hops, with explicit reasoning paths and reference evidence, and evaluate explicit memory (sparse, dense, tree, and graph retrieval), implicit memory (two fine-tuning schemes), and hybrid methods under four reasoning structures. They report that explicit memory clearly outperforms implicit memory on MPR, that fine-tuning alone stores large personal corpora poorly, and that their HybridMem—which clusters statements, trains a LoRA adapter per cluster, and selects the relevant adapter from retrieved evidence—achieves the best performance on multi-hop structures, particularly on 7–10 hop questions. If these results hold, MPR provides a more realistic stress test for agent memory than preference alignment or single-hop QA.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the path-sampled reasoning chain generated from a meta graph. The meta graph defines spaces of entities, attributes, and relations; instantiating it produces a specific graph per user, whose non-value edges are rewritten into personalized statements. Sampling a k-edge path (with a disambiguation step for ambiguous attribute edges) and taking its endpoint as the answer yields quadruples (path, reference statements, question, answer) that make the two MPR conditions true by construction and provide retrievable evidence. On the memory side, the argument is carried by comparing retrieval (explicit) with LoRA fine-tuning (implicit), and HybridMem's mechanism is K-means clustering of statements, one LoRA adapter per cluster, and voting-based adapter selection driven by the same dense retrieval used for explicit memory.

What would settle it

Run the Ignoramus baseline (no user statements) over the full dataset: if a material share of questions is answered correctly from general knowledge, the no-leakage condition fails. Then have human annotators check a random sample of questions for the two MPR conditions—whether the labeled reference statements are necessary and whether any single statement suffices—and check whether the golden references appear in the top-20 retrieved sets; a high failure rate on either check would make the explicit-versus-implicit comparison an artifact of the generator rather than a property of memory mechanisms.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a new task and a comparative finding. MPR is defined by two conditions: some subset of the user's statements is necessary and sufficient for the answer, and no single statement alone yields it. The constructed dataset makes both conditions true by design, since questions are generated from sampled reasoning paths on a meta-graph-derived specific graph, with answers assigned to path endpoints. Across four reasoning structures, retrieval-based explicit memory consistently beats fine-tuning-based implicit memory: exact-match accuracy for dense retrieval on sequential and multi-path reasoning falls from over 60% on 2-hop questions to about 20% on 10-hop questions, while implicit memory alone remains poor at every hop. The paper also finds that reasoning structure matters by 10–20 points, that larger retrieval counts help short hops but an intermediate count is best for long hops, and that naive fine-tuning combined with retrieval often degrades performance. HybridMem addresses this by making implicit memory query-dependent, and the paper reports it as the best overall method on multi-hop structures, with the largest gains on long-hop questions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the LLM-generated synthetic dataset is a valid measurement instrument: sampled entities and values must not leak answers, rewritten questions must not be answerable from general knowledge or from any single statement, and the statement distribution must resemble real user histories.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • MPR should become a standard stress test for agent memory, because it exposes composition gaps between stored user histories and queries that preference-alignment and single-hop QA benchmarks do not.
  • For practical personalized agents, explicit retrieval memory is the safer default; fine-tuning alone should not be trusted to store large factual user profiles.
  • Memory evaluations should report or control the reasoning structure, since sequential and multi-path reasoning outperform naive and decomposition reasoning by 10–20 percentage points regardless of memory mechanism.
  • Hop count should guide retrieval settings: larger retrieval counts help short-hop questions, while intermediate counts give peak accuracy on long-hop questions because extra retrieved statements add noise.
  • Query-dependent implicit memory works: HybridMem's cluster-level adapters selected by retrieval beat plain RAG and plain SFT on 7–10 hop questions, at the cost of extra clustering and adapter-loading time.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the synthetic dataset faithfully models real user histories, then GraphRAG's poor showing suggests entity ambiguity—not graph structure—is the main retrieval obstacle, implying that coreference resolution before graph construction is a testable fix.
  • The cluster-adapter design suggests a general principle: implicit memory should be indexed and selected just like explicit memory. Extending it to semantic or hierarchical clustering, and to adapter selection conditioned on intermediate reasoning states rather than the initial question, are natural next tests.
  • All experiments use one base-model family, so the explicit-over-implicit margin may shift with stronger or differently trained backbones; rerunning the same benchmark across model sizes and training objectives would show whether the conclusion is backbone-dependent.
  • Because the dataset is LLM-generated with no reported human validation, its value as a benchmark ultimately depends on an independent check of answer uniqueness and single-statement unanswerability; a human-annotated subset is the direct way to verify that explicit memory's advantage is not a generator artifact.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces the multi-hop personalized reasoning (MPR) task, formally defined in Definition 1, in which an agent must answer questions that depend on multiple personalized statements and cannot be answered from any single statement. The authors construct a synthetic dataset via a meta-graph and LLM-based rewriting (Section 3.3.2), then evaluate explicit memory (RAG variants), implicit memory (LoRA SFT), and a hybrid method (HybridMem) across four reasoning structures. They report that explicit memory outperforms implicit memory, and that HybridMem yields improvements on long-hop questions. Code and dataset are released.

Significance. If the MPR benchmark is valid, it fills a gap: existing personalization benchmarks (LaMP, PerLTQA, LongMemEval) do not require multi-hop reasoning over factual personalized statements. The paper's experiments cover a wide range of memory mechanisms, reasoning structures, and ablations, and the release of code and data enables further research. The central findings are plausible but rest entirely on a synthetic dataset that is not externally validated, and on differences that are not statistically substantiated. As a benchmark contribution, the dataset's validity is the load-bearing element.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.2, Definition 1] The dataset generator never verifies condition (2) of Definition 1. Step 4's disambiguation mechanism only prevents attribute-value ambiguity, not answerability from a single statement; Step 5 instructs an LLM to rewrite path statements into a question whose answer is the path endpoint, with no check that the answer cannot be obtained from any single statement or from general knowledge. The Ignoramus baseline (Section 4.1) is a partial control, but its accuracy is not reported anywhere in the text or figures. If single-statement answerability or general-knowledge leakage occurs, the comparisons of explicit vs. implicit memory and the HybridMem gains could be artifacts of the generator. Please add a leakage filter over generated questions (e.g., prompt a strong LLM to answer from each individual statement and from no statements), report the rejection rate, and report Ignoramus accuracy.
  2. [§3.3.2, Steps 3–5] The construction is internally inconsistent for value-oriented edges. Step 3 rewrites only non-value-oriented edges into user statements, but Step 4 samples reasoning paths that may include value-oriented edges, and Step 5 assumes every edge t_i has a corresponding user statement m_i. For paths containing value-oriented edges, no m_i exists. The paper says personalized edges are 'major' but not exclusive, so the inconsistency is real. This needs to be clarified or the generator should exclude value-oriented edges from reasoning paths.
  3. [§3.3.3 and Table 2/Table 1] The dataset size is given as 10,800 in Section 3.3.3 but as 108,000 in Table 2 and Table 1; the text also says '1,000 QA tasks for each hop count ranging from 2 to 9,' which is incompatible with the stated 2–10 hop range and with QA (Each User) = 9,000. Please correct these numbers and align the hop-range description with Table 2.
  4. [Table 3 and §6.3] The claim that HybridMem 'achieves the best overall performance' with 'particularly notable improvements on long-hop questions' is not statistically supported. Table 3 reports no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests, and experiments are run on a 2,700-question sub-dataset (Section 3.4.1). Several HybridMem advantages are small (e.g., SR long-hop DenseRAG: 0.216 vs. 0.223; SparseRAG: 0.200 vs. 0.232), and some cells are worse than the corresponding X baseline (e.g., NR short-hop DenseRAG: 0.206 vs. 0.197). Please provide multiple runs with variance and significance tests, or soften the claims accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.2] The subsection title 'BlockSFT Method' appears to be a typo; the text describes the HybridMem method.
  2. [§3.3.3] The phrase 'ranging from 2 to 9' should read 'ranging from 2 to 10' to match the rest of the paper.
  3. [Definition 1] Condition (2) is rendered with a garbled symbol; please use the standard 'there does not exist' quantifier.
  4. [§4.1 and Figure 3] The Ignoramus baseline is shown in figures but its numeric accuracy is never reported in the text; please report it, as it is the only control against general-knowledge leakage.
  5. [References] The ACM Reference Format block contains placeholder DOIs and a placeholder conference name; these should be filled in before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the unverified benchmark-generation condition is a validity risk, not a circular step.

full rationale

All central claims in the paper are empirical measurements on a newly constructed benchmark, not implications derived from a fitted parameter or from an equation. Section 3.3.2 constructs each MPR item by sampling a k-hop path on a generated graph, rewriting edges into user statements, and asking an LLM to rewrite the path statements into a question whose answer is the path endpoint, so the path is sufficient by construction. The explicit-vs-implicit and HybridMem results are then obtained by running RAG, SFT, and hybrid baselines on these tasks; nothing in the paper predicts these accuracies from the dataset definition, so there is no equation-level circularity. The legitimate concern is that Step 5 never verifies Definition 1's condition (2), that no single statement answers the question, and no leakage check against general knowledge is reported; if violated, the comparisons could be artifacts of the generator. That is a benchmark-validity and correctness risk, not a reduction of the conclusions to their inputs. The self-citations ([26], [42], [43], [44]) supply a taxonomy and related memory tools, but they are not used as a uniqueness theorem or as proof of the headline comparisons; the results are measured model outputs. I therefore find no circular step meeting the quote-and-exhibit-evidence bar, and assign score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No mathematical derivation is present; the paper's claims rest on an unvalidated synthetic dataset, hyperparameter choices, and the representativeness of a 2,700-question subset. There are no new physical or ontological entities.

free parameters (5)
  • retrieval count k = 20
    Top-20 retrieved statements for all RAG methods; Section 4.3 shows accuracy depends on this count, so it is a hand-set parameter affecting conclusions.
  • cluster count K = 30 or 50
    K-means cluster number in HybridMem; Section 6.4 finds 50 slightly better than 30, so the method's result depends on this choice.
  • training epochs = 1 to 10, best at 7
    Epoch counts are tuned; Section 6.5 selects epoch 7 based on accuracy, and Figure 10 shows strong sensitivity.
  • LoRA rank and alpha = rank 8, alpha 32
    Fixed configuration for all SFT and HybridMem adapters; not searched.
  • reasoning steps = 5
    Number of multi-hop reasoning steps set to 5 except in step-count experiments; Section 4.4 shows performance varies with this count.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper LLM-generated statements and questions are factually correct and free of answer leakage.
    Section 3.3.2 Steps 2 to 5 rely on LLMs to sample values, rewrite edges into statements, and generate questions; no human or automated validation is reported, so benchmark validity rests on this assumption.
  • domain assumption The 2,700-question evaluation subset is representative of the full 108,000-question dataset.
    Section 3.4.1 selects 2,700 questions uniformly across hops to reduce compute; all main figures are based on this subset and no analysis shows subset results match full-dataset results.
  • domain assumption Exact Match after normalization is a sufficient evaluation for MPR answers.
    Section 3.4.1 defines accuracy via Exact Match; semantically correct answers with different wording count as wrong, which may distort comparisons across methods.
  • domain assumption Textual user statements fully capture the personalized information needed for MPR tasks.
    Definition 1 in Section 3.1 restricts input to a set of statements; the benchmark excludes multi-turn dialogues, structured databases, and other realistic memory formats.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Explicit v.s. Implicit Memory: Exploring Multi-hop Complex Reasoning Over Personalized Information." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XE3Q5VLD

@misc{pith2026250813250,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Explicit v.s. Implicit Memory: Exploring Multi-hop Complex Reasoning Over Personalized Information},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XE3Q5VLD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.13250}
}
read the original abstract

In large language model-based agents, memory serves as a critical capability for achieving personalization by storing and utilizing users' information. Although some previous studies have adopted memory to implement user personalization, they typically focus on preference alignment and simple question-answering. However, in the real world, complex tasks often require multi-hop reasoning on a large amount of user information, which poses significant challenges for current memory approaches. To address this limitation, we propose the multi-hop personalized reasoning task to explore how different memory mechanisms perform in multi-hop reasoning over personalized information. We explicitly define this task and construct a dataset along with a unified evaluation framework. Then, we implement various explicit and implicit memory methods and conduct comprehensive experiments. We evaluate their performance on this task from multiple perspectives and analyze their strengths and weaknesses. Besides, we explore hybrid approaches that combine both paradigms and propose the HybridMem method to address their limitations. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed model through extensive experiments. To benefit the research community, we release this project at https://github.com/nuster1128/MPR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.13250 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Demonstration of multi-hop personalized reasoning tasks and previous personalization tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of exploration on multi-hop personalized reasoning tasks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Performance of various retrieved statement counts. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Performance of various reasoning steps, with mean [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Overall performances of implicit memory. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Performance of various cluster counts. In each bar, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Performance of various training epochs. The results indicate that implicit memory alone cannot achieve great performance even after training for more epochs. Additionally, the performance of MSO and ASO significantly declines as training steps increase, possibly becau…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Performance of various reasoning steps. We find that even with increased reasoning steps, implicit mem￾ory cannot achieve reasonable results under our setting. For MSO and ASO, their results exhibit similar patterns to explicit memory as analyzed in the previous secti…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Performance of various backbone size. Across various reasoning structures and memory baselines, the 3B model shows significant degradation in accuracy. Among differ￾ent reasoning structures, NR and DR exhibit the most pronounced performance decline, significantly high…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. RGMem: Renormalization Group-inspired Memory Evolution for Language Agents

    cs.AI 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    RGMem, a hierarchical memory framework with thresholded updates inspired by renormalization group ideas, reports state-of-the-art scores on the LOCOMO long-term conversational memory benchmark.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Yupeng Chang, Xu Wang, Jindong Wang, Yuan Wu, Linyi Yang, Kaijie Zhu, Hao Chen, Xiaoyuan Yi, Cunxiang Wang, Yidong Wang, et al . 2024. A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology 15, 3 (2024), 1–45

    2024

  2. [2]

    Jin Chen, Zheng Liu, Xu Huang, Chenwang Wu, Qi Liu, Gangwei Jiang, Yuanhao Pu, Yuxuan Lei, Xiaolong Chen, Xingmei Wang, et al. 2024. When large language models meet personalization: Perspectives of challenges and opportunities.World Wide Web 27, 4 (2024), 42

    2024

  3. [3]

    Wenhu Chen, Hanwen Zha, Zhiyu Chen, Wenhan Xiong, Hong Wang, and William Wang. 2020. Hybridqa: A dataset of multi-hop question answering over tabular and textual data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.07347 (2020)

    arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Prateek Chhikara, Dev Khant, Saket Aryan, Taranjeet Singh, and Deshraj Ya- dav. 2025. Mem0: Building production-ready ai agents with scalable long-term memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19413 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. 2019. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, volume 1 (long and short papers). 4171–4186

    2019

  6. [6]

    Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Jingyuan Ma, Rui Li, Heming Xia, Jingjing Xu, Zhiyong Wu, Tianyu Liu, et al. 2022. A survey on in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234 (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Yiming Du, Hongru Wang, Zhengyi Zhao, Bin Liang, Baojun Wang, Wanjun Zhong, Zezhong Wang, and Kam-Fai Wong. 2024. PerLTQA: A Personal Long- Term Memory Dataset for Memory Classification, Retrieval, and Synthesis in Question Answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.16288 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Wenqi Fan, Yujuan Ding, Liangbo Ning, Shijie Wang, Hengyun Li, Dawei Yin, Tat-Seng Chua, and Qing Li. 2024. A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 6491–6501

    2024

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. 2024. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges.arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01680 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2020. Constructing a multi-hop qa dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01060 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, Weizhu Chen, et al. 2022. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. ICLR 1, 2 (2022), 3

    2022

  4. [12]

    Xu Huang, Weiwen Liu, Xiaolong Chen, Xingmei Wang, Hao Wang, Defu Lian, Yasheng Wang, Ruiming Tang, and Enhong Chen. 2024. Understanding the planning of LLM agents: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02716 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Ishita Kumar, Snigdha Viswanathan, Sushrita Yerra, Alireza Salemi, Ryan A Rossi, Franck Dernoncourt, Hanieh Deilamsalehy, Xiang Chen, Ruiyi Zhang, Shubham Agarwal, et al. 2024. Longlamp: A benchmark for personalized long-form text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11016 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Yuanchun Li, Hao Wen, Weijun Wang, Xiangyu Li, Yizhen Yuan, Guohong Liu, Jiacheng Liu, Wenxing Xu, Xiang Wang, Yi Sun, et al. 2024. Personal llm agents: Insights and survey about the capability, efficiency and security. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05459 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Stuart Lloyd. 1982. Least squares quantization in PCM. IEEE transactions on information theory 28, 2 (1982), 129–137

    1982

  8. [16]

    Xing Han Lù. 2024. BM25S: Orders of magnitude faster lexical search via eager sparse scoring. arXiv:2407.03618 [cs.IR] https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03618

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Chelsea Finn, and Christopher D Manning. 2021. Fast model editing at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.11309 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Humza Naveed, Asad Ullah Khan, Shi Qiu, Muhammad Saqib, Saeed Anwar, Muhammad Usman, Naveed Akhtar, Nick Barnes, and Ajmal Mian. 2023. A com- prehensive overview of large language models. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (2023)

    2023

  11. [19]

    Boci Peng, Yun Zhu, Yongchao Liu, Xiaohe Bo, Haizhou Shi, Chuntao Hong, Yan Zhang, and Siliang Tang. 2024. Graph retrieval-augmented generation: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08921 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. Squad: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.05250 (2016)

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Alireza Rezazadeh, Zichao Li, Wei Wei, and Yujia Bao. 2024. From Isolated Conversations to Hierarchical Schemas: Dynamic Tree Memory Representation for LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14052 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Alireza Salemi, Sheshera Mysore, Michael Bendersky, and Hamed Zamani. 2023. Lamp: When large language models meet personalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.11406 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Julian Schnitzler, Xanh Ho, Jiahao Huang, Florian Boudin, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. 2024. Morehopqa: More than multi-hop reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13397 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Teng Shi, Jun Xu, Xiao Zhang, Xiaoxue Zang, Kai Zheng, Yang Song, and Han Li

  17. [25]

    Karen Sparck Jones. 1972. A statistical interpretation of term specificity and its application in retrieval. Journal of documentation 28, 1 (1972), 11–21

    1972

  18. [26]

    Haoran Tan, Zeyu Zhang, Chen Ma, Xu Chen, Quanyu Dai, and Zhenhua Dong

  19. [27]

    Zhaoxuan Tan, Qingkai Zeng, Yijun Tian, Zheyuan Liu, Bing Yin, and Meng Jiang

  20. [28]

    arXiv:2506.21605 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.21605

    MemBench: Towards More Comprehensive Evaluation on the Memory of LLM-based Agents. arXiv:2506.21605 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.21605

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal

  22. [30]

    Lei Wang, Chen Ma, Xueyang Feng, Zeyu Zhang, Hao Yang, Jingsen Zhang, Zhiyuan Chen, Jiakai Tang, Xu Chen, Yankai Lin, et al. 2024. A survey on large language model based autonomous agents. Frontiers of Computer Science 18, 6 (2024), 186345

    2024

  23. [31]

    Yixuan Tang and Yi Yang. 2024. Multihop-rag: Benchmarking retrieval- augmented generation for multi-hop queries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.15391 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Binxing Jiao, Linjun Yang, Daxin Jiang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. 2022. Text Embeddings by Weakly-Supervised Contrastive Pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.03533 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 24824–24837

    2022

  26. [34]

    Di Wu, Hongwei Wang, Wenhao Yu, Yuwei Zhang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Dong Yu. 2024. Longmemeval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10813 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Lei Wang, Wanyu Xu, Yihuai Lan, Zhiqiang Hu, Yunshi Lan, Roy Ka-Wei Lee, and Ee-Peng Lim. 2023. Plan-and-solve prompting: Improving zero-shot chain- of-thought reasoning by large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.04091 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Zhiheng Xi, Wenxiang Chen, Xin Guo, Wei He, Yiwen Ding, Boyang Hong, Ming Zhang, Junzhe Wang, Senjie Jin, Enyu Zhou, et al. 2025. The rise and potential of large language model based agents: A survey. Science China Information Sciences 68, 2 (2025), 121101

    2025

  29. [37]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, Keming Lu, Keqin Bao, Kexin Yang, Le Yu, Me...

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A dataset for di- verse, explainable multi-hop question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.09600 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Jian Wu, Linyi Yang, Zhen Wang, Manabu Okumura, and Yue Zhang. 2024. Cofca: A Step-Wise Counterfactual Multi-hop QA benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11924 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Qiyuan Zhang, Fuyuan Lyu, Zexu Sun, Lei Wang, Weixu Zhang, Wenyue Hua, Haolun Wu, Zhihan Guo, Yufei Wang, Niklas Muennighoff, et al. 2025. A Survey on Test-Time Scaling in Large Language Models: What, How, Where, and How Well? arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.24235 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Shengyu Zhang, Linfeng Dong, Xiaoya Li, Sen Zhang, Xiaofei Sun, Shuhe Wang, Jiwei Li, Runyi Hu, Tianwei Zhang, Fei Wu, and Guoyin Wang. 2024. Instruction Tuning for Large Language Models: A Survey. arXiv:2308.10792 [cs.CL] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2308.10792

    2024

  34. [42]

    Zeyu Zhang, Xiaohe Bo, Chen Ma, Rui Li, Xu Chen, Quanyu Dai, Jieming Zhu, Zhenhua Dong, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024. A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model based agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13501 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Tom Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik Narasimhan. 2023. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems 36 (2023), 11809–11822

    2023

  36. [44]

    Zeyu Zhang, Quanyu Dai, Xu Chen, Rui Li, Zhongyang Li, and Zhenhua Dong

  37. [45]

    Wayne Xin Zhao, Kun Zhou, Junyi Li, Tianyi Tang, Xiaolei Wang, Yupeng Hou, Yingqian Min, Beichen Zhang, Junjie Zhang, Zican Dong, et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223 1, 2 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Wanjun Zhong, Lianghong Guo, Qiqi Gao, He Ye, and Yanlin Wang. 2024. Memo- rybank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 38. 19724–19731

    2024

  39. [47]

    Zeyu Zhang, Quanyu Dai, Luyu Chen, Zeren Jiang, Rui Li, Jieming Zhu, Xu Chen, Yi Xie, Zhenhua Dong, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024. Memsim: A bayesian simulator for evaluating memory of llm-based personal assistants. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20163 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Andrew Zhu, Alyssa Hwang, Liam Dugan, and Chris Callison-Burch. 2024. Fanoutqa: Multi-hop, multi-document question answering for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14116 (2024). Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Zeyu Zhang 1, Yang Zhang2, Haoran Tan1,...

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    In Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025

    MemEngine: A Unified and Modular Library for Developing Advanced Memory of LLM-based Agents. In Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025. 821–824. Explicit v.s. Implicit Memory: Exploring Multi-hop Complex Reasoning Over Personalized Information Conference’17, J...

    2025

  42. [52]

    Zexuan Zhong, Zhengxuan Wu, Christopher D Manning, Christopher Potts, and Danqi Chen. 2023. Mquake: Assessing knowledge editing in language models via multi-hop questions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14795 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  43. [56]

    If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD)

    if the answer is a number, please do not include commas. If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD). You should only output the answer in one line (no code block), without any other descriptions. The prompt of NR with implicit memor...

  44. [59]

    If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD)

    if the answer is a number, please do not include commas. If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD). You should only output the answer in one line (no code block), without any other descriptions. B.2 Prompts of Sequential Reasoning ...

  45. [61]

    Explicit v.s

    You should only output the thoughts in one line (no code block). Explicit v.s. Implicit Memory: Exploring Multi-hop Complex Reasoning Over Personalized Information Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA (Thinking) The prompt of SR with explicit memory. To better answer ...

    2017

  46. [63]

    (Answering) The prompt of SR with explicit memory

    You should only output the thoughts in one line (no code block). (Answering) The prompt of SR with explicit memory. To better answer the following question, let’s think step by step. Please help me generate the answer to the question based on the given information and your pre...

  47. [66]

    If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD)

    if the answer is a number, please do not include commas. If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD). You should only output the answer in one line (no code block), without any other descriptions. (Starting) The prompt of SR with imp...

  48. [68]

    (Thinking) The prompt of SR with implicit memory

    You should only output the thoughts in one line (no code block). (Thinking) The prompt of SR with implicit memory. To better answer the following questions, let’s think step by step. The current step is [Current Step], and you should pro- vide the final answer at step [Max Ste...

  49. [70]

    (Answering) The prompt of SR with implicit memory

    You should only output the thoughts in one line (no code block). (Answering) The prompt of SR with implicit memory. To better answer the following question, let’s think step by step. Please help me generate the answer to the question based on your previous thoughts. Previous T...

  50. [73]

    If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD)

    if the answer is a number, please do not include commas. If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD). You should only output the answer in one line (no code block), without any other descriptions. B.3 Prompts of Multi-path Reasoning ...

  51. [75]

    Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Zeyu Zhang 1, Yang Zhang2, Haoran Tan1, Rui Li 1, Xu Chen 1 (Thinking) The prompt of MR with explicit memory

    You should only output the thoughts in one line (no code block). Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA Zeyu Zhang 1, Yang Zhang2, Haoran Tan1, Rui Li 1, Xu Chen 1 (Thinking) The prompt of MR with explicit memory. To better answer the following questions, let’s think st...

    2017

  52. [77]

    (Answering) The prompt of MR with explicit memory

    You should only output the thoughts in one line (no code block). (Answering) The prompt of MR with explicit memory. To better answer the following question, let’s think step by step. Please help me generate the answer to the question based on the given information and your pre...

  53. [80]

    If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD)

    if the answer is a number, please do not include commas. If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD). You should only output the answer in one line (no code block), without any other descriptions. (Starting) The prompt of MR with imp...

  54. [82]

    (Thinking) The prompt of MR with implicit memory

    You should only output the thoughts in one line (no code block). (Thinking) The prompt of MR with implicit memory. To better answer the following questions, let’s think step by step. Please generate your thoughts for the current step, and you may refer to your previous thought...

  55. [83]

    Your thoughts should be concise but informative sen- tences

  56. [84]

    (Answering) The prompt of MR with implicit memory

    You should only output the thoughts in one line (no code block). (Answering) The prompt of MR with implicit memory. To better answer the following question, let’s think step by step. Please help me generate the answer to the question based on your previous thoughts. Informatio...

  57. [87]

    If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD)

    if the answer is a number, please do not include commas. If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD). You should only output the answer in one line (no code block), without any other descriptions. B.4 Prompts of Decomposition Reasoni...

  58. [90]

    Explicit v.s

    You can decompose the problem into 1 to [Max Sub- question] sub-questions, and any content beyond 5 lines will be ignored. Explicit v.s. Implicit Memory: Exploring Multi-hop Complex Reasoning Over Personalized Information Conference’17, July 2017, Washington, DC, USA (Solving)...

    2017

  59. [92]

    (Merging) The prompt of NR with explicit memory

    You should only output the answer in one line (no code block), without any other descriptions. (Merging) The prompt of NR with explicit memory. In order to better answer the following question, we have decomposed them into several sub-questions and answered them separately. Pl...

  60. [95]

    If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD)

    if the answer is a number, please do not include commas. If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD). You should only output the answer in one line (no code block), without any other descriptions. (Dividing) The prompt of NR with imp...

  61. [96]

    The sub-questions should be concise

  62. [97]

    Each sub-questions is on a separate line, without any other descriptions

  63. [98]

    (Solving) The prompt of NR with implicit memory

    You can decompose the problem into 1 to [Max Sub- question] sub-questions, and any content beyond 5 lines will be ignored. (Solving) The prompt of NR with implicit memory. In order to better answer the following question, we have decomposed them into several sub-questions. Ple...

  64. [99]

    The answer should be concise but informative

  65. [100]

    (Merging) The prompt of NR with implicit memory

    You should only output the answer in one line (no code block), without any other descriptions. (Merging) The prompt of NR with implicit memory. In order to better answer the following question, we have decomposed them into several sub-questions and answered them separately. Pl...

  66. [101]

    your answer should be as concise as possible, commonly in a few words

  67. [102]

    if the answer is a date, please output it in YYYY-MM-DD format

  68. [103]

    If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD)

    if the answer is a number, please do not include commas. If the numerical answer has units, please indicate them in parentheses, such as 5 (USD). You should only output the answer in one line (no code block), without any other descriptions

  69. [2022]

    Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 10 (2022), 539–554

    MuSiQue: Multihop Questions via Single-hop Question Composition. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 10 (2022), 539–554

    2022

  70. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04401 (2024)

    Democratizing large language models via personalized parameter-efficient fine-tuning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.04401 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  71. [2025]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05731 (2025)

    Retrieval Augmented Generation with Collaborative Filtering for Personal- ized Text Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05731 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.