arxiv: 2605.12213 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 💻 cs.AI

Recognition: no theorem link

Goal-Oriented Reasoning for RAG-based Memory in Conversational Agentic LLM Systems

Jiazhou Liang , Armin Toroghi , Yifan Simon Liu , Faeze Moradi Kalarde , Liam Gallagher , Scott Sanner

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 05:14 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI

keywords RAGmemory retrievalconversational agentsgoal-oriented reasoningbackward chainingmulti-hop reasoningNatural Language LogicLLM agents

0 comments

The pith

Goal-Mem improves RAG memory retrieval by decomposing user goals into atomic subgoals and applying backward chaining to fetch missing facts.

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

LLM-based conversational agents lose coherence over long interactions because limited context forces reliance on external memory, yet standard RAG often returns evidence that is irrelevant or incomplete for complex questions. Goal-Mem instead treats the current utterance as a goal and reasons backward by breaking it into simple atomic subgoals. For each subgoal it performs targeted retrieval from memory, and when an intermediate goal remains unresolved it identifies the next fact that must be pulled. The process is expressed in Natural Language Logic so every step stays both verifiable and writable in ordinary language. Experiments across two datasets and nine memory baselines show consistent gains, with the largest benefits on tasks that require chaining multiple inferences or drawing on implicit commonsense.

Core claim

The paper establishes that explicit goal-oriented reasoning, performed by decomposing each user utterance into atomic subgoals and executing targeted memory retrieval through iterative backward chaining, enables more effective RAG-based memory use in conversational LLM agents. This process is formalized in Natural Language Logic, a system that preserves the verifiability of first-order logic while retaining the expressiveness of natural language, and yields measurable improvements over similarity-based retrieval, especially on multi-hop reasoning and implicit-inference questions.

What carries the argument

Goal-Mem, the framework that decomposes user goals into atomic subgoals and guides RAG retrieval via explicit backward chaining in Natural Language Logic.

If this is right

Agents obtain the exact intermediate facts needed for multi-hop questions instead of receiving only surface-similar but insufficient passages.
Retrieval becomes selective, reducing the volume of irrelevant memory entries that can distract or mislead downstream reasoning.
When a subgoal cannot be satisfied from current memory, the system can explicitly determine and fetch the next required piece rather than stopping.
Performance advantages appear most clearly on questions that depend on implicit commonsense or chained inferences.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The decomposition approach could be applied to long-horizon planning tasks outside conversational memory settings.
Natural Language Logic offers a route for human-auditable traces in agent decision processes.
Persistent errors in automatic subgoal decomposition might require an added verification step not present in the current implementation.

Load-bearing premise

That goals can be automatically decomposed into atomic subgoals and that targeted retrieval will reliably locate the precise missing intermediate facts without introducing new reasoning errors.

What would settle it

A direct comparison on a multi-hop reasoning dataset in which Goal-Mem produces no accuracy gain or introduces incorrect intermediate conclusions relative to a pure semantic-similarity retrieval baseline.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12213 by Armin Toroghi, Faeze Moradi Kalarde, Jiazhou Liang, Liam Gallagher, Scott Sanner, Yifan Simon Liu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Overview of GOAL-MEM. The framework starts from the user utterance and goal initialization (top), decomposes the goal into NL-Logic subgoals for memory retrieval from a selected backbone (middle), and checks whether the retrieved memory grounds all subgoals through unification. If not, it enters the depth loop (middle), identifying new subgoals with targeted retrieval until all variables have been substi… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: LLM accuracy by question type on LoCoMo with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Accuracy vs. Dmax (left two) and Bmax (right two). Depth yields steady gains, particularly on weaker backbones; breadth saturates after a single decomposition. References [1] Emre Can Acikgoz, Jeremiah Greer, Akul Datta, Ze Yang, William Zeng, Oussama Elachqar, Emmanouil Koukoumidis, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, and Gokhan Tur. Can a single model master both multi-turn conversations and tool use? CoALM: A unified c… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Empirical distributions of realized search statistics in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

LLM-based conversational AI agents struggle to maintain coherent behavior over long horizons due to limited context. While RAG-based approaches are increasingly adopted to overcome this limitation by storing interactions in external memory modules and performing retrieval from them, their effectiveness in answering challenging questions (e.g., multi-hop, commonsense) ultimately depends on the agent's ability to reason over the retrieved information. However, existing methods typically retrieve memory based on semantic similarity to the raw user utterance, which lacks explicit reasoning about missing intermediate facts and often returns evidence that is irrelevant or insufficient for grounded reasoning. In this work, we introduce Goal-Mem, a goal-oriented reasoning framework for RAG-based agentic memory that performs explicit backward chaining from the user's utterance as a goal. Rather than progressively expanding from retrieved context, Goal-Mem decomposes each goal into atomic subgoals, performs targeted memory retrieval to satisfy each subgoal, and iteratively identifies what information from memory should be retrieved when intermediate goals cannot be resolved. We formalize this process in Natural Language Logic, a logical system that combines the verifiability of reasoning provided by FOL with the expressivity of natural language. Through extensive experiments on two datasets and comparing to nine strong memory baselines, we show that Goal-Mem consistently improves performance, particularly on tasks requiring multi-hop reasoning and implicit inference.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

read the letter

Goal-Mem adds explicit backward chaining and subgoal decomposition to RAG memory retrieval, which targets a genuine gap in multi-hop agent reasoning, but the evaluation lacks the detail needed to judge the gains firmly. The paper starts from the observation that standard semantic-similarity RAG often pulls irrelevant or incomplete memory for questions that require chaining facts or implicit inference. Instead it treats the user utterance as a goal, breaks it into atomic subgoals, retrieves specifically for each one, and iterates when a subgoal cannot be resolved from current memory. The process is written down in Natural Language Logic, which keeps the steps readable while aiming for some verifiability. That framing is the clearest new piece; it is not just another prompt-engineering trick but a structured retrieval loop. The abstract claims consistent wins over nine baselines on two datasets, especially on the harder reasoning subsets, and the stress-test note finds no internal contradiction between the method and the stated goals. Those are the parts that hold up on a first read. The soft spot is the experimental reporting. No statistical tests, error bars, or exact baseline re-implementations are described in the available text, so it is impossible to tell how sensitive the improvements are to data splits or hyper-parameters. Reproducibility of the decomposition step itself also looks thin without pseudocode or failure-mode analysis. This paper is for groups already working on long-horizon conversational agents and external memory modules. A reader who needs a concrete alternative to pure embedding retrieval will get a usable starting point. It is worth sending to peer review because the motivation is solid and the method is testable; the current evidence is preliminary rather than decisive, but the work is coherent enough to benefit from referee feedback on the evaluation design.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Goal-Mem, a goal-oriented reasoning framework for RAG-based memory in conversational LLM agents. It performs explicit backward chaining by decomposing user goals into atomic subgoals, conducting targeted memory retrieval for each, and iteratively resolving unresolved subgoals, all formalized in a Natural Language Logic system that combines FOL verifiability with natural-language expressivity. Experiments on two datasets against nine memory baselines report consistent performance gains, especially on multi-hop reasoning and implicit-inference tasks.

Significance. If the empirical results hold under rigorous verification, the work offers a concrete advance over semantic-similarity retrieval by making the agent's reasoning about missing intermediate facts explicit and iterative. The Natural Language Logic formalization is a notable strength, providing a verifiable yet flexible substrate that could be reused in other agentic systems. The approach directly targets a recognized limitation in long-horizon conversational agents.

major comments (2)

[§5] §5 (Experiments) and Table 2: Performance gains are reported as consistent improvements over nine baselines, yet no statistical significance tests, error bars, confidence intervals, or details on random seeds/data splits are provided. Without these, it is impossible to determine whether the observed deltas are robust or could arise from implementation variance in the baselines.
[§3.3] §3.3 (Natural Language Logic formalization) and §4.1 (subgoal decomposition): The central mechanism relies on automatic decomposition of goals into atomic subgoals that reliably surface missing facts. No ablation isolating the decomposition step or error analysis of decomposition failures is presented, leaving the weakest assumption untested despite being load-bearing for the multi-hop gains.

minor comments (3)

[§3.2] The definition of Natural Language Logic predicates and inference rules in §3.2 would benefit from a small worked example showing a full backward-chaining trace on a multi-hop query.
[§5.1] Baseline descriptions in §5.1 list nine methods but omit exact hyper-parameter settings and retrieval-top-k values used for each; these should be tabulated for reproducibility.
[Figure 3] Figure 3 (qualitative example) caption does not indicate whether the shown trace is a success or failure case, reducing its illustrative value.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and positive evaluation of the work's significance. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that strengthen the empirical rigor and analysis of the core mechanisms.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§5] §5 (Experiments) and Table 2: Performance gains are reported as consistent improvements over nine baselines, yet no statistical significance tests, error bars, confidence intervals, or details on random seeds/data splits are provided. Without these, it is impossible to determine whether the observed deltas are robust or could arise from implementation variance in the baselines.

Authors: We agree that the original manuscript lacks statistical significance tests, error bars, confidence intervals, and details on random seeds and data splits. This omission limits the ability to assess result robustness. In the revised version we will re-execute all experiments across at least five random seeds, report means with standard deviations as error bars in Table 2, add confidence intervals for key metrics, include explicit details on data splits in §5, and perform paired t-tests (or equivalent) to establish statistical significance of the reported improvements over baselines. revision: yes
Referee: [§3.3] §3.3 (Natural Language Logic formalization) and §4.1 (subgoal decomposition): The central mechanism relies on automatic decomposition of goals into atomic subgoals that reliably surface missing facts. No ablation isolating the decomposition step or error analysis of decomposition failures is presented, leaving the weakest assumption untested despite being load-bearing for the multi-hop gains.

Authors: We acknowledge that subgoal decomposition is load-bearing for the multi-hop gains and that the manuscript does not isolate its contribution via ablation or provide error analysis of decomposition failures. While the end-to-end results support the full pipeline, an explicit ablation and failure analysis would strengthen the claims. In the revision we will add an ablation comparing Goal-Mem to a non-decomposing variant (direct retrieval from the goal) and include a dedicated error analysis subsection in §5 with quantitative failure rates and qualitative examples drawn from both datasets. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical evaluation is independent of method definition

full rationale

The paper's central contribution is an empirical demonstration that Goal-Mem outperforms nine external baselines on two datasets for multi-hop and implicit-inference tasks. The method (goal decomposition, targeted retrieval, iterative resolution in Natural Language Logic) is defined independently of the reported performance numbers; no equations, fitted parameters, or self-citation chains are shown that would force the gains by construction. The evaluation uses standard external benchmarks and baselines, making the result falsifiable outside the paper's own definitions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the existence and utility of Natural Language Logic plus the feasibility of reliable automatic subgoal decomposition; no numerical free parameters are mentioned.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Natural Language Logic combines the verifiability of first-order logic with the expressivity of natural language
Invoked to formalize the goal-decomposition and retrieval process.

invented entities (1)

Goal-Mem framework no independent evidence
purpose: Performs goal-oriented backward chaining for RAG memory retrieval
Newly introduced system whose independent evidence is the reported experimental gains.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5551 in / 1300 out tokens · 73277 ms · 2026-05-13T05:14:59.969959+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages · 12 internal anchors

[1]

Can a single model mas- ter both multi-turn conversations and tool use? CoALM: A unified conversational agen- tic language model

Emre Can Acikgoz, Jeremiah Greer, Akul Datta, Ze Yang, William Zeng, Oussama Elachqar, Emmanouil Koukoumidis, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, and Gokhan Tur. Can a single model mas- ter both multi-turn conversations and tool use? CoALM: A unified conversational agen- tic language model. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Ling...

work page
[2]

doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.605

Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.605. URL https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.605/

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.605 2025
[3]

The comparison between forward and backward chaining.International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing, 5(2):106–113, 2015

Ajlan Al-Ajlan. The comparison between forward and backward chaining.International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing, 5(2):106–113, 2015. doi: 10.7763/IJMLC. 2015.V5.492. URL https://www.ijml.org/index.php?a=show&c=index&catid=56& id=554&m=content

work page doi:10.7763/ijmlc 2015
[4]

LongBench: A bilingual, multitask benchmark for long context understanding

Yushi Bai, Xin Lv, Jiajie Zhang, Hongchang Lyu, Jiankai Tang, Zhidian Huang, Zhengxiao Du, Xiao Liu, Aohan Zeng, Lei Hou, Yuxiao Dong, Jie Tang, and Juanzi Li. LongBench: A bilingual, multitask benchmark for long context understanding. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages ...

work page 2024
[5]

Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memory

Prateek Chhikara, Dev Khant, Saket Aryan, Taranjeet Singh, and Deshraj Yadav. Mem0: Building production-ready AI agents with scalable long-term memory, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2504.19413

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[6]

Pan, Ruifeng Xu, and Kam-Fai Wong

Yiming Du, Bingbing Wang, Yang He, Bin Liang, Baojun Wang, Zhongyang Li, Lin Gui, Jeff Z. Pan, Ruifeng Xu, and Kam-Fai Wong. MemGuide: Intent-driven memory selection for goal-oriented multi-session LLM agents.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 40(36):30584–30592, 2026. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v40i36.40313. URL https: //ojs.aaai.org/i...

work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i36.40313 2026
[7]

From Local to Global: A Graph RAG Approach to Query-Focused Summarization

Darren Edge, Ha Trinh, Newman Cheng, Joshua Bradley, Alex Chao, Apurva Mody, Steven Truitt, Dasha Metropolitansky, Robert Osazuwa Ness, and Jonathan Larson. From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130, 2024

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[8]

Fikes and Nils J

Richard E. Fikes and Nils J. Nilsson. STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving.Artificial Intelligence, 2(3–4):189–208, 1971. doi: 10.1016/ 0004-3702(71)90010-5

work page 1971
[9]

Gemma 4 model overview, 2026

Google AI. Gemma 4 model overview, 2026. URL https://ai.google.dev/gemma/docs/ core. Accessed: 2026-05-07

work page 2026
[10]

VOGUE: A multimodal dataset for conversational recommendation in fashion, 2025

David Guo, Minqi Sun, Yilun Jiang, Jiazhou Liang, and Scott Sanner. VOGUE: A multimodal dataset for conversational recommendation in fashion, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2510.21151. Accepted as a full paper at ACM UMAP 2026

work page arXiv 2025
[11]

MAGMA: A Multi-Graph based Agentic Memory Architecture for AI Agents

Dongming Jiang, Yi Li, Guanpeng Li, and Bingzhe Li. MAGMA: A multi-graph based agentic memory architecture for AI agents, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03236. ACL 2026 Main. 10

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[12]

InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers)

Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6769–6781, Online, 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/ 2...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/ 2020
[13]

LAM- BADA: Backward chaining for automated reasoning in natural language

Mehran Kazemi, Najoung Kim, Deepti Bhatia, Xin Xu, and Deepak Ramachandran. LAM- BADA: Backward chaining for automated reasoning in natural language. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6547–6568, Toronto, Canada, 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10. ...

work page 2023
[14]

Bayesian Active Learning with Gaussian Processes Guided by LLM Relevance Scoring for Dense Passage Retrieval

Junyoung Kim, Anton Korikov, Jiazhou Liang, Justin Cui, Yifan Simon Liu, Qianfeng Wen, Mark Zhao, and Scott Sanner. Bayesian active learning with gaussian processes guided by llm relevance scoring for dense passage retrieval.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.17906, 2026

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[15]

SymBa: Symbolic backward chaining for structured natural language reasoning

Jinu Lee and Wonseok Hwang. SymBa: Symbolic backward chaining for structured natural language reasoning. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Amer- icas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2468–2484, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2025. Association for Compu...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.124 2025
[16]

Evaluating Scene-based In-Situ Item Labeling for Immersive Conversational Recommendation

Jiazhou Liang, Yifan Simon Liu, David Guo, Minqi Sun, Yilun Jiang, and Scott Sanner. Evaluating scene-based in-situ item labeling for immersive conversational recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.09698, 2026

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[17]

In: Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (TACL), 12:157-173 (2024)

Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:157–173, 2024. doi: 10.1162/tacl_a_00638. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2024.tacl-1.9/

work page doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00638 2024
[18]

Multimodal item scoring for natural language recommendation via gaussian process regression with llm relevance judgments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22023, 2025

Yifan Liu, Qianfeng Wen, Jiazhou Liang, Mark Zhao, Justin Cui, Anton Korikov, Armin Toroghi, Junyoung Kim, and Scott Sanner. Multimodal item scoring for natural language recommendation via gaussian process regression with llm relevance judgments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22023, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[19]

MA-DPR: Manifold- aware distance metrics for dense passage retrieval

Yifan Liu, Qianfeng Wen, Mark Zhao, Jiazhou Liang, and Scott Sanner. MA-DPR: Manifold- aware distance metrics for dense passage retrieval. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 31085–31103, Suzhou, China, 2025. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1582. URL ht...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1582 2025
[20]

Semantic XPath: Structured agentic memory access for conversational AI, 2026

Yifan Simon Liu, Ruifan Wu, Liam Gallagher, Jiazhou Liang, Armin Toroghi, and Scott Sanner. Semantic XPath: Structured agentic memory access for conversational AI, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01160

work page arXiv 2026
[21]

Query rewriting in retrieval- augmented large language models

Xinbei Ma, Yeyun Gong, Pengcheng He, Hai Zhao, and Nan Duan. Query rewriting in retrieval- augmented large language models. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5303–5315, Singapore, 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.322. URL https:// aclanthology.or...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.322 2023
[22]

Evaluating Very Long-Term Conversational Memory of

Adyasha Maharana, Dong-Ho Lee, Sergey Tulyakov, Mohit Bansal, Francesco Barbieri, and Yuwei Fang. Evaluating very long-term conversational memory of LLM agents. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 13851–13870, Bangkok, Thailand, 2024. Association for Computational Linguis...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.747 2024
[23]

RAGTruth: A hallucination corpus for developing trustworthy retrieval- augmented language models

Cheng Niu, Yuanhao Wu, Juno Zhu, Siliang Xu, KaShun Shum, Randy Zhong, Juntong Song, and Tong Zhang. RAGTruth: A hallucination corpus for developing trustworthy retrieval- augmented language models. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for 11 Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 10862–10878, Bangkok, Thailand,

work page
[24]

doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.585

Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.585. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-long.585/

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.585 2024
[25]

Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano, mar 2026

OpenAI. Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano, mar 2026. URL https://openai.com/index/ introducing-gpt-5-4-mini-and-nano/. Accessed: 2026-05-07

work page 2026
[26]

Parth Sarthi, Salman Abdullah, Aditi Tuli, Shubh Khanna, Anna Goldie, and Christopher D

Alireza Rezazadeh, Zichao Li, Wei Wei, and Yujia Bao. From isolated conversations to hierarchical schemas: Dynamic tree memory representation for LLMs, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.14052

work page arXiv 2024
[27]

The P robabilistic R elevance F ramework: BM25 and B eyond

Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond.Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 3(4):333–389, 2009. doi: 10.1561/ 1500000019. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1561/1500000019

work page doi:10.1561/1500000019 2009
[28]

Russell and Peter Norvig.Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach

Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig.Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995. ISBN 0131038052

work page 1995
[29]

Parth Sarthi, Salman Abdullah, Aditi Tuli, Shubh Khanna, Anna Goldie, and Christopher D. Manning. RAPTOR: Recursive abstractive processing for tree-organized retrieval, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.18059

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[30]

Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao

Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Re- flexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=vAElhFcKW6

work page 2023
[31]

In Ku, L.-W., Martins, A

Armin Toroghi, Willis Guo, Ali Pesaranghader, and Scott Sanner. Verifiable, debuggable, and repairable commonsense logical reasoning via LLM-based theory resolution. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6634–6652, Miami, Florida, USA, 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024 2024
[32]

Interleaving Retrieval with Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Knowledge-Intensive Multi-Step Questions

Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Inter- leaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step ques- tions. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 10014–10037, Toronto, Canada, 2023. Asso- ciation for C...

work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.557 2023
[33]

LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory

Di Wu, Hongwei Wang, Wenhao Yu, Yuwei Zhang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Dong Yu. Long- MemEval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10813. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=pZiyCaVuti

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.10813 2025
[34]

From Human Memory to AI Memory: A Survey on Memory Mechanisms in the Era of LLMs, April 2025

Yaxiong Wu, Sheng Liang, Chen Zhang, Yichao Wang, Yongyue Zhang, Huifeng Guo, Ruiming Tang, and Yong Liu. From human memory to AI memory: A survey on memory mechanisms in the era of LLMs, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.15965

work page arXiv 2025
[35]

A-MEM: Agentic Memory for LLM Agents

Wujiang Xu, Zujie Liang, Kai Mei, Hang Gao, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang. A-MEM: Agen- tic memory for LLM agents, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12110. NeurIPS 2025

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[36]

AdaMem: Adaptive User-Centric Memory for Long-Horizon Dialogue Agents

Shannan Yan, Jingchen Ni, Leqi Zheng, Jiajun Zhang, Peixi Wu, Dacheng Yin, Jing Lyu, Chun Yuan, and Fengyun Rao. AdaMem: Adaptive user-centric memory for long-horizon dialogue agents, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.16496

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[37]

ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models

Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.03629. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=WE_vluYUL-X. 12

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.03629 2023
[38]

$\tau$-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains

Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, and Karthik R. Narasimhan. τ-bench: A bench- mark for tool-agent-user interaction in real-world domains. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.12045. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=roNSXZpUDN

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.12045 2025
[39]

A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model based agents,

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

work page
[40]

URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13501

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[41]

Ama-bench: Evaluating long-horizon memory for agentic applications, 2026

Yujie Zhao, Boqin Yuan, Junbo Huang, Haocheng Yuan, Zhongming Yu, Haozhou Xu, Lanxiang Hu, Abhilash Shankarampeta, Zimeng Huang, Wentao Ni, Yuandong Tian, and Jishen Zhao. AMA-Bench: Evaluating long-horizon memory for agentic applications, 2026. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2602.22769

work page arXiv 2026
[42]

MemoryBank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory

Wanjun Zhong, Lianghong Guo, Qiqi Gao, He Ye, and Yanlin Wang. MemoryBank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38(17):19724–19731, 2024. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v38i17.29946. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/29946. 13 A GOAL-MEMAlgorithm The workflow of the GOAL...

work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i17.29946 2024
[43]

previous

Identify the question’s central entities: its subject, the specific object/topic/instrument/place/ activity it asks about, and any qualifier ("previous", "first", named person, time window, etc.)

work page
[44]

Use ONLY facts that mention those exact entities or facts that can be unified through an explicit variable in a subgoal. Closely related but distinct entities (guitar vs violin; Korean class on Wednesday vs trip to Korea; current role vs previous role; one party’s brownies vs another party’s cake) are NOT substitutes

work page
[45]

Do not pick a thematically similar fact as a fallback

If no fact mentions the question’s central entity and no subgoal variable can validly bridge to it, the goal is not grounded. Do not pick a thematically similar fact as a fallback. UNIFICATION PROCESS:

work page
[46]

Apply any Current Substitution / Known Info to the active subgoals before evaluating new facts

work page
[47]

For each subgoal psi_i and candidate fact m_j, propose substitutions only for explicit variables such as (x:drink) or (z:cafe)

work page
[48]

Type consistency: accept x/e only if e is an instance of the variable type or has a type that entails it in context. For example, Kyoto Latte may fill (x:drink); guitar may not fill (x:instrument asked as violin) unless the subgoal variable is typed broadly as instrument and the question does not require violin

work page
[49]

Reject conflicting bindings

Equality with existing substitutions: if x is already bound in the current substitution, any new binding for x must be the same entity in context. Reject conflicting bindings

work page
[50]

Topical similarity is not enough

Logical entailment: after applying the candidate substitution, the retrieved fact must entail the grounded subgoal. Topical similarity is not enough

work page
[51]

Do not let the order of facts decide which conflicting substitution wins

Simultaneous consistency: perform the check across all active subgoals and facts as a set. Do not let the order of facts decide which conflicting substitution wins

work page
[52]

I don’t know

Conflict handling: if facts ground the same required variable with incompatible values and the conflict cannot be resolved from the facts alone, answer "I don’t know". ANSWER RULES: - Your answer must be based on the provided facts and general rules/subgoals. State the used facts and rules explicitly in your reasoning. - Indicate the number of facts and g...

work page 2023
[53]

Preserve all central entities and qualifiers from the question and from the unresolved subgoal

Target the exact unresolved subgoal. Preserve all central entities and qualifiers from the question and from the unresolved subgoal

work page
[54]

(x:drink) served in (z:cafe visited last week)

Do not merely paraphrase the unresolved subgoal. Generate an antecedent that would make the unresolved part checkable. Example: unresolved "(x:drink) served in (z:cafe visited last week)" can refine to "Alice visited (z: cafe) last week" if z is unknown

work page
[55]

Reuse the same variable names when the refined subgoal is intended to ground the same variable

Keep unresolved variables explicit as (x:type), (y:type), etc. Reuse the same variable names when the refined subgoal is intended to ground the same variable

work page
[56]

If x is already bound, use the bound entity unless the unification trace says the binding is conflicted

Respect existing substitutions. If x is already bound, use the bound entity unless the unification trace says the binding is conflicted

work page
[57]

Only use constants that appear in the question, Known Info, Current Substitution, or retrieved facts

Do not invent constants. Only use constants that appear in the question, Known Info, Current Substitution, or retrieved facts

work page
[58]

If Previously Retrieved Missing Info or Previously Refined Subgoals are provided, the new refinement MUST take a different angle

Avoid repeated refinement. If Previously Retrieved Missing Info or Previously Refined Subgoals are provided, the new refinement MUST take a different angle

work page
[59]

none"> Retrieval Queries: - <natural-language query corresponding to refined subgoal 1, or

If no useful new refinement is possible, set Refinement Status to stop and explain why. Relation Type selection: - temporal: the missing evidence is about when something happened or the sequence of events. - causal: the missing evidence is about why something happened, what caused it, or what resulted from it. - semantic: the missing evidence is about the...

work page 2023