Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 98 references

An agent that maintains typed, editable, consolidated memory from egocentric video plans better than one using flat text or entity graphs, with the largest gains on never-seen goals.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 02:38 UTC pith:4RL2XIGR

load-bearing objection Useful benchmark and a credible planning result, but the headline memory-assessment gain is a post-hoc selective-precision claim that needs re-reporting before it is taken at face value. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.14252 v1 pith:4RL2XIGR submitted 2026-07-15 cs.RO cs.AIcs.CL

MEMORA: Embodied Action Memory from Egocentric Videos for Reasoning and Planning

Zihao Yu , Xiu Yuan , Chongjie Zhang This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.AIcs.CL
keywords embodied action memoryegocentric videorobot planningmemory consolidationlong-horizon planningentity state trackingLLM agentskitchen activities
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that long-horizon robot planning in familiar environments depends on memory formed from accumulated embodied experience, not just on immediate perception. It introduces Embodied Action Memory (EAM) as a formulation and MEMORA as a system that turns continuous egocentric video into four typed stores: environment, entity, activity, and inferred knowledge. Online editing keeps object identity through state changes; offline consolidation abstracts repeated episodes into routines, habits, and preferences. On a 45-hour, 18-participant benchmark built from egocentric kitchen video, full MEMORA beats flat-text and entity-graph memory across four open-weight language models, improving memory-assessment accuracy by up to 20.5 points and out-of-distribution plan scores by up to 16.6% relative.

Core claim

The central discovery is that a memory lifecycle — formation through online editing, consolidation across episodes, and typed retrieval — converts egocentric video into planning-relevant context better than storing observations as flat text or as an entity graph. MEMORA maintains four typed stores that separate continuities changing at different rates: Environment Memory for stable places, Entity Memory for objects whose identity persists through state change, Activity Memory for ordered action evidence, and Inferred Knowledge for regularities abstracted across experience. The paper's controlled experiments show that online editing compresses entity memory by a median of about 18× while pres

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the formation–consolidation–retrieval lifecycle instantiated by the update rule M_t = EDIT(M_{t-1}, φ(v_t, c_{t-1})), together with four typed stores: Environment Memory (places and spatial relations), Entity Memory (objects with state histories edited by ADD/UPDATE/DELETE/NOOP operations), Activity Memory (append-only 10-second action records), and Inferred Knowledge (routines, habits, preferences consolidated offline from repeated evidence). At read time the stores split planning evidence into procedural templates ('how to do it') from Inferred Knowledge and Activity Memory, and physical grounding ('which object, where, with what attributes') from Entity and Enviro

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the perception and editing pipeline — audio-visual and language models, with no human verification — produces memory faithful enough to ground planning; the paper's own limitations note that missed objects cannot be recovered unless they appear later and repeated perception errors may enter consolidated knowledge.

What would settle it

Replace the Replay planning references with human-annotated ground truth derived directly from the raw videos instead of from the same consolidated memory the agent retrieves; if MEMORA's Replay advantage over flat-text baselines shrinks or reverses, the current metric rewards self-consistency rather than fidelity to the actual experience.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A robot operating in a familiar space should maintain a typed, editable memory of past episodes rather than a flat transcript, because typed retrieval separates procedure from grounding.
  • Online editing — the ADD/UPDATE/DELETE/NOOP decisions — is what keeps object identity stable through state changes; without it, entity memory grows roughly 18× larger and becomes noisier.
  • Offline consolidation helps most for cross-session questions and for out-of-distribution planning goals, where no single stored episode matches the request; the gains are concentrated in the two strongest reasoning backbones.
  • The same memory state can serve both retrospective questions (what did this person do?) and prospective plans (what should the robot do?), so a single memory formation pipeline can feed both memory-QA and planning.
  • Open-weight perception and editing models are sufficient to reproduce the headline results; no closed-weight model is required.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: the Replay references are themselves memory-derived (constructed from the same consolidated memory the agent retrieves), so the planning metric may partly reward self-consistency; a human-annotated reference set for Replay would separate memory fidelity from plan coherence.
  • If typed memory generalizes beyond kitchens, the same four-store lifecycle could apply to other longitudinal embodied settings — offices, clinics, workshops — where stable places, persistent objects, ordered procedures, and person-specific regularities all matter.
  • The paper's strongest planning gains come on Generalize tasks with the two larger reasoning backbones, suggesting consolidation is only useful when the planner is strong enough to compose reusable routines with episodic grounding; weaker planners may need the memory exposed differently or routines pre-composed.
  • The ablation showing that a smaller memory editor raises 'information not available' selections from 42.8% to 62.3% implies memory quality is bottlenecked by write-time editing capacity, not perception alone, pointing to better memory editors or verification as a direct path to better planning.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces MEMORA, a typed-memory framework that forms, edits, consolidates, and retrieves embodied action memory from egocentric video, and MEMORA-Bench, a 45-hour benchmark with an EAM-QA multiple-choice arm and a MEMORA-Planning arm (Replay and Generalize). The authors evaluate seven memory conditions on four open-weight LLM backbones, reporting that full MEMORA achieves the strongest aggregate results, with EAM-QA gains up to +20.5 points over the strongest controlled baseline and Generalize RGP improvements up to +16.6% relative. A qualitative two-task robot deployment is included as a sanity check.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to memory-augmented robot planning: it provides a concrete lifecycle for converting longitudinal egocentric video into typed, editable, consolidated memory, and it ships a benchmark that separates retrospective memory assessment from prospective planning. Strengths include the controlled seven-condition ladder (perception, retrieval, and backbone fixed), the annotation-derived EAM-QA gold answers, the independently verified Generalize task references, careful leakage controls, and a fully open-weight main pipeline with a closed-weight sanity check. The Generalize planning result is consistently positive across backbones and is the most credible component. However, the headline EAM-QA claim is undermined by selective conditioning on the treatment's own answerability, and the Replay planning references are memory-derived, so the overall strength of the evidence is substantially weaker than the abstract suggests.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix L, Table VIII; §V-C.a] The headline '+20.5 points' is computed on the 'experience-dependent + memory-grounded' subset, which conditions on (a) Parametric answering incorrectly and (b) MEMORA selecting a content option A–D. This is a selective-precision measure, not an estimate of overall memory-assessment accuracy: questions where MEMORA would select E are removed from the denominator for all conditions, while the same filtering is not applied to the baselines. On the full benchmark (Table VIII), MEMORA is negative vs. the best baseline on two backbones (-3.4, -9.9) and barely positive on the others (+1.5, -0.5). The abstract and §V-C should either headline the full-benchmark result or clearly frame the conditional result as a diagnostic of precision, not overall accuracy.
  2. [Table VIII and Table IX footnotes; Appendix U0a] The per-backbone EAM-QA panels are not comparable because they use different participant intersections: Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is reported on an 8-PID intersection in Table VIII and a 12-PID intersection in Table IX, while the other backbones use the full 18-PID panel. Moreover, the 18-PID panel includes the P01–P04 calibration cohort used to tune the pipeline (Appendix U0a). This means the headline 18-PID rows may reflect tuning leakage. The paper should report the held-out 14-PID cohort for all headline claims, or at least show that the results are unchanged when P01–P04 are excluded.
  3. [§V-A.b; Appendix P.b] Replay planning references are explicitly defined as 'matched memory-derived routine/object/preference references' — i.e., the references are extracted from the same consolidated memory the system builds. Replay RGP therefore measures self-consistency between the planner's output and the memory state, not correctness against an independent ground truth. This is acknowledged for 'when defined,' but the main text and Figure 3 present Replay as in-distribution planning evidence. The paper should clearly state that Replay is a self-consistency check and designate Generalize, whose references are independently verified task-level steps, as the primary evidence for planning quality.
  4. [Limitations (b); §IV-C] EAM-QA gold answers are derived from EPIC-KITCHENS annotations, so the QA arm measures whether the memory can answer annotation-grounded questions, not whether the memory faithfully reflects the physical environment. This distinction matters because the paper claims 'faithfulness to past experience' (§IV-C). Given the admitted pipeline dependence — missed objects cannot be recovered and repeated perception errors may enter consolidated knowledge — a memory that is internally consistent but systematically wrong could still score well on annotation-derived questions if the errors happen to align with the annotations. The claim of 'faithfulness' should be tempered to 'ability to support annotation-derived question answering.'
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says '18 participants' but panel (b) is explicitly computed on the P01–P04 calibration cohort only. State this in the caption itself, not only in the appendix, to avoid misleading readers.
  2. [§IV-C] The sentence 'Construction and quality-control details are in Appendices G, R0b, and G' repeats 'G' — likely a cross-reference error. Please fix.
  3. [Appendix L, Table VIII] The table and text use 'SOCRATIC' while the main text and Table III use 'Flat-1D' for the same baseline. Standardize the terminology (e.g., 'Flat-1D (Socratic)').
  4. [Appendix P.c] The 'V2 verb extractor' is referenced but never defined. Provide a brief description or a pointer to the released code so the OrderExec metric is fully reproducible.
  5. [§V-A.b] The paper refers to 'EPIC-KITCHENS-100 extension video' but the cited reference [2] is the original EPIC-KITCHENS-100. Clarify what 'extension' means and provide the corresponding dataset identifier or URL.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Selective EAM-QA subset and memory-derived Replay references create partial circularity; the Generalize split and annotation-grounded QA labels keep the core planning claim independently grounded.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Appendix L ('Experience-Dependent Memory Evaluation Views'); Table VIII; abstract §I]
    "Within that view, we report memory-grounded answerability, the operating point where MEMORA can ground a contentful answer in retrieved memory evidence (selects one of A–D rather than E). ... The Parametric (no-memory) baseline is 0% in the experience-dependent view by construction. ... Experience-dependent + memory-grounded 63.7 +11.0 ... 74.5 +20.5"

    The headline '+20.5 points' is MEMORA's accuracy on the subset {Parametric wrong} ∩ {MEMORA selects A–D}. The subset is defined using MEMORA's own refusal behavior, so it removes exactly the items MEMORA would answer E while not doing the same for the baselines scored on that subset. The resulting number is P(correct | MEMORA attempts, Parametric fails) — a selective-precision estimate, not an estimate of overall memory-assessment accuracy. The abstract nevertheless presents it as 'improves memory-assessment accuracy by up to 20.5 points'. The paper's own full-benchmark view in Table VIII shows MEMORA trailing the strongest baseline on two backbones (−3.4, −9.9), confirming the headline gain is an artifact of the chosen conditioning rather than a general accuracy improvement.

  2. self definitional [§V-A.b; Appendix P.b (Reference provenance)]
    "Replay is scored against matched memory-derived routine/object/preference references when defined, while Generalize uses verified task-level order references. ... Replay asks whether an agent recovers a workflow already present in participant memory, so OrderExec, KeyObj, and PrefAdh use matched consolidated routine, object, and preference references."

    For Replay, the ground truth is not an independent annotation but the memory system's own consolidated routine: the reference is the routine_skills entry with highest Jaccard overlap with the task query. A plan that reproduces the memory's internal summary will therefore score well regardless of whether that summary matches the underlying EPIC narrations. Replay RGP is thus a self-consistency check between the planner and the memory bank under evaluation, not a correctness measure against verified observed workflows. This circularity is confined to the Replay arm; Generalize uses verified task-level ground_truth_steps, which is why the strongest OOD planning claim retains independent support.

full rationale

The paper's central planning claim is not reduced to its inputs by construction. EAM-QA gold answers are annotation-derived from EPIC-KITCHENS narrations and are independent of the memory under test; the Generalize planning split uses verified task-level order references rather than memory-derived routines; and the qualitative robot deployment checks specific remembered objects and preferences. However, two evaluation choices are partially circular. First, the headline EAM-QA gain is computed on an experience-dependent, memory-grounded subset that conditions on MEMORA's own A–D selections, making the '+20.5 points' a conditional precision measure rather than an overall accuracy result; the paper itself reports the full-benchmark view where MEMORA does not consistently beat the strongest baseline. Second, Replay is explicitly scored against 'matched memory-derived routine/object/preference references', so its RGP measures self-consistency with the consolidated memory rather than fidelity to independent ground truth. These issues affect the memory-assessment headline and the Replay arm, but not the Generalize arm or the annotation-grounded QA labels, so the core claim that typed, consolidated memory improves out-of-distribution planning retains independent content. There is no load-bearing self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in by citation. Score 4 reflects partial circularity in selected evaluation views while acknowledging the independent Generalize result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No physical entities are posited; EAM and the four stores are software abstractions with no external falsifiable handle.

free parameters (5)
  • Segment window length = 10 s
    Perception and activity records are constructed from fixed 10-second non-overlapping windows; changes granularity of state histories and action breakdowns.
  • Cross-video evidence support threshold = >=2 videos
    SPREF/SHABIT/SROUTINE items require preference/habit/routine seen in at least two videos; affects what counts as a regularity.
  • Jaccard thresholds for planning metrics = 0.10 routine match; 0.05 preference relevance
    Used to match routine_skills and preferences to task queries; changing thresholds changes RGP composition.
  • Retrieval top-k and dedup threshold = top_k=10; cosine>=0.95 dedup
    All memory search returns top-10 records after embedding dedup; affects evidence available to ReAct agent.
  • ReAct iteration budgets = 5 for EAM-QA; 8 for planning
    Number of tool calls allowed; affects whether retrieval/planning can access enough evidence.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption EPIC-KITCHENS-100 egocentric kitchen videos are a sufficient proxy for embodied experience
    The entire benchmark and memory formation depend on this dataset; generalization to other environments is not tested.
  • domain assumption Qwen2.5-Omni-7B segment perception and Qwen3-30B-A3B editing reliably extract object identities, states, and actions
    If perception/editing misses objects, memory is wrong; paper's Limitations (b) admits this.
  • domain assumption LLM-based offline consolidation produces valid routines, habits, and preferences from repeated evidence
    Inferred Knowledge is generated by LLM prompts; no independent verification of generated preferences beyond benchmark consistency.
  • domain assumption ReAct loop with typed retrieval is an adequate model of memory-grounded planning
    Planning is evaluated as language-level plans from an LLM agent; physical execution only in 2 qualitative tasks.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 46634 in / 13340 out tokens · 138959 ms · 2026-08-02T02:38:04.971866+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Long-horizon robot planning requires more than predicting what actions will do next; it also requires memory of the embodied experience that makes future goals interpretable. People do not plan from the present scene alone: they draw on remembered places, object-state changes, prior procedures, and regularities revealed through repeated action. We formulate Embodied Action Memory (EAM) as the capability to form, maintain, and use such experience as a persistent memory state for later decisions. MEMORA realizes EAM with a formation-consolidation-retrieval lifecycle and four typed stores: Environment Memory, Entity Memory, Activity Memory, and Inferred Knowledge. Online editing maintains object identities and state histories as new observations arrive; offline consolidation abstracts repeated experience into reusable procedures and participant-specific regularities. MEMORA-Bench evaluates this lifecycle on 45 hours of EPIC-KITCHENS-100 extension video across 18 participants through memory-grounded planning, including previously unseen goals, and a complementary memory-assessment task. Across four open-weight language models, full MEMORA--combining editing, typed stores, and consolidation--achieves the strongest aggregate results among the evaluated memory conditions. It improves memory-assessment accuracy by up to 20.5 points over the strongest controlled baseline and improves out-of-distribution Robot-Grounded Plan score by up to 16.6% relative. A qualitative two-task robot deployment study further illustrates how memory-grounded language plans can interface with downstream control, while the overall results show that editable, consolidated memory can supply remembered context for robot planning. Project page: https://yuzihaowashu.github.io/MEMORA/

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14252 by Chongjie Zhang, Xiu Yuan, Zihao Yu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: MEMORA studies embodied memory as a lifecycle from experience to action. An agent observes continuous egocentric experience, forms typed memory online, and consolidates repeated experience into reusable routines, habits, and preferences. The resulting memory supports experience-grounded reasoning, planning, and qualitative physical robot transfer. memory state maintains four typed stores: Environment Memor… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Active memory formation in Entity Memory (18 participants). (a) Cumulative records with and without the editor (per-segment median, first 150 segments). (b) Editor decision mix (n=37,648, P01–P04): NOOP (45.8%) and UPD (44.4%) dominate ADD (8.0%) with rare DEL (1.8%) — the editor mostly maintains rather than expands. (c) Per-participant size before vs. after editing; median reduction ≈ 18×, minimum 9×. Per… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: MEMORA-Planning connects remembered evidence to long-horizon plans and aggregate gains. (a) A real Generalize task queries memory-derived evidence for dirty dishes, drying rack, dish towel, dish soap, and sponge evidence. (b) The raw MEMORA model response produces a 27-step plan; the figure shows a compact excerpt that collects dirty items, grounds tools and places, sequences scrub/rinse/dry operations, an… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Physical robot demonstration. MEMORA uses memory formed from human egocentric video to generate language-level plans executed by a rule-based Unitree G1 for Prepare Drink and Breakfast. Generated plans are in Appendix XVII; full per-frame traces are in Appendices 19 and 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Appendix visual roadmap for MEMORA-Bench. The appendix separates four concepts that are easy to conflate: longitudinal evidence, held-out benchmark tasks, memory-bank construction from video, and memory-conditioned evaluation. Subsequent figures expand the memory-bank construction pipeline ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: MEMORA memory-bank construction pipeline. The system watches egocentric videos turn by turn, converts each clip into structured observations, updates typed memory online, and then consolidates participant-level routines and preferences for downstream Embodied Memory and Planning evaluations. D. Processor Prompt Templates The construction pipeline in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Prompt templates for MEMORA memory-bank construction. Each box preserves the operational contract of a prompted processor: what enters the module, what instruction constrains it, and what structured fields it must emit. Environment Memory record environment_log: [ location_id: sink_area current_state: layout_description, zones=[sink_basin, drying_rack, prep_counter], spatial_relations=[drying_rack RIGHT_OF… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Abbreviated JSON-style examples of MEMORA memory records. The panel keeps literal schema field names but compresses values so the four record types can be compared without a split listing block. F. Memory Stores and Leakage Control a) Leakage control.: In retrospective Embodied Memory, leakage control means the agent may retrieve only evidence available strictly before the question anchor task: activity an… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Memory-conditioned evaluation and scoring loop. The benchmark item and the scoped memory interface are kept separate: benchmark tasks define what should be answered, while memory substrates define what the agent can retrieve before committing to an answer or plan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: MEMORA-Embodied Memory benchmark construction pipeline. MEMORA-Bench converts longitudinal action annotations into experience-dependent Embodied Memory questions through four phases: evidence preparation, question synthesis, curation and verification, and release. Colors indicate whether each stage is annotation input, deterministic processing, LLM-based synthesis, hybrid checking, or the released benchma… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Prompt skeletons for Embodied Memory question generation. All generation prompts append the shared verifiability rules; SPREF, SHABIT, SROUTINE, and ERECALL differ in the evidence pattern they require and the schema fields they emit. Placeholders {P} and {N} are filled per run, and multi-hop variants reuse the same framing with supplied action chains. model must recognize when the memory state lacks suffi… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Released Embodied Memory items (P06). Left column: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: MEMORA-Planning benchmark construction pipeline. The flow converts EPIC action annotations into prospective, experience-grounded planning requests. Unlike the memory-bank construction flow in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Planning prompt templates. The panel compresses the four prompt surfaces into their operational differences: available memory, tool surface, retrieval priority, and final￾answer constraints. P. Metrics a) Rule-based metrics.: The reported panel uses rule￾based metrics rather than an LLM judge. For a generated plan P = (p1, . . . , pm), task query x, participant routines R, and participant preferences Q, w… view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Excerpt from a real memora ReAct trace for plan_P03_101_019. The trace illustrates routine-first re￾trieval followed by object grounding before final plan emission. R. Generation pipeline reproducibility a) Reproducibility.: The generation pipeline is determinis￾tic under the fixed EPIC CSV, participant list, and released con￾solidated Inferred Knowledge banks. Task extraction targets 12 tasks per partici… view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Cross-backbone RGP summary (companion to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Per-store contribution of agent tool calls during planning (1,440 tasks = 4 backbones × 2 suites × 18 PIDs × 12 tasks). (a) Under the main MEMORA configuration, every backbone draws on multiple typed stores, but with markedly different mixtures: Gemma4-26B-A4B-it routes 54% of its tool budget to Inferred Knowledge (routines, preferences), while Qwen3.6-27B routes 71% to Entity Memory (object identity). A … view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Tool-call distribution on EAM-QA across baselines and MEMORA. Aggregated from 7,068 questions and 17,220 tool calls (4 backbones × four EAM-QA question types: ELOC, EORDER, SPREF, ERECALL). Socratic exposes only a single search (100%); Graph-2D adds time-localised helpers; MEMORA exposes a typed-dispatching search that routes to all four memory categories internally, plus two specialised tools (get_object… view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Task A: Prepare Drink (full trace). The contact sheet shows the human egocentric demonstration and the Unitree G1 execution guided by MEMORA’s memory-grounded language plan and a fixed rule-based controller. This task tests preference and entity grounding: success depends on selecting bottled Coca-Cola over a visually salient Fanta can and the demonstrator’s orange plastic cup among multiple colored cups … view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Task B: Breakfast (full trace). The contact sheet shows the human egocentric demonstration and the Unitree G1 execution guided by MEMORA’s memory-grounded language plan and a fixed rule-based controller. This task adds ordered procedural execution: success depends on selecting the yellow bowl, Cinnamon Tea, yellow spoon, and bread in the remembered breakfast sequence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p03… view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Qualitative ablation contrast on two EAM-QA items (Gemma-4-26B-A4B-it answer agent; MEMORA-Episodic memory bank; held-out 14-PID cohort). Both items illustrate the two failure modes inferred from the aggregate numbers in Table XX (Gemma block): (i) the memory-ablation arm (A1-14B) loses the contentful answer because the under-written memory provides insufficient retrievable support, raising E-rate; (ii) t… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 39 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Do as i can, not as i say: Grounding language in robotic affordances, 2022

    Michael Ahn, Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Yevgen Chebotar, Omar Cortes, Byron David, Chelsea Finn, Chuyuan Fu, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Karol Hausman, Alex Herzog, Daniel Ho, Jasmine Hsu, Julian Ibarz, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Eric Jang, Rosario Jauregui Ruano, Kyle Jeffrey, Sally Jesmonth, Nikhil J Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnikov, Yuheng Kuang, K...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Epic- kitchens-100, 2020

    Dima Aldamen, Davide Moltisanti, Evangelos Kaza- kos, Hazel Doughty, Jonathan Munro, William Price, Michael Wray, Tobias Perrett, and Jian Ma. Epic- kitchens-100, 2020. URL https://data.bris.ac.uk/data/ dataset/2g1n6qdydwa9u22shpxqzp0t8m/

    2020

  3. [3]

    Anderson.The Architecture of Cognition

    John R. Anderson.The Architecture of Cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983

    1983

  4. [4]

    R. C. Atkinson and R. M. Shiffrin. Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. volume 2 of The Psychology of learning and motivation, pages 89–195. Academic Press, New York, 1968

    1968

  5. [5]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.24164

    Kevin Black, Noah Brown, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Szymon Jakubczak, Tim Jones, Liyiming Ke, Sergey Levine, Adrian Li-Bell, Mohith Mothukuri, Suraj Nair, Karl Pertsch, Lucy Xi- aoyang Shi, James Tanner, Quan Vuong, Anna Walling, Haohuan Wang, and Ury Zhilinsky.π0: A vis...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Rt-2: Vision-language-action models transfer web knowledge to robotic control, 2023

    Anthony Brohan, Noah Brown, Justice Carbajal, Yev- gen Chebotar, Xi Chen, Krzysztof Choromanski, Tianli Ding, Danny Driess, Avinava Dubey, Chelsea Finn, Pete Florence, Chuyuan Fu, Montse Gonzalez Arenas, Keerthana Gopalakrishnan, Kehang Han, Karol Hausman, Alexander Herzog, Jasmine Hsu, Brian Ichter, Alex Irpan, Nikhil Joshi, Ryan Julian, Dmitry Kalashnik...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Mem0: Building production- ready ai agents with scalable long-term memory, 2025

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Egoavflow: Robot policy learning with active vision from human egocentric videos via 3d flow, 2026

    Daesol Cho, Youngseok Jang, Danfei Xu, and Sehoon Ha. Egoavflow: Robot policy learning with active vision from human egocentric videos via 3d flow, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.22461

    arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Cole, Michael J

    Jeremy R. Cole, Michael J. Q. Zhang, Daniel Gillick, Julian Martin Eisenschlos, Bhuwan Dhingra, and Jacob Eisenstein. Selectively answering ambiguous questions,

  10. [10]

    Memory for autonomous llm agents: Mecha- nisms, evaluation, and emerging frontiers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07670, 2026

    Pengfei Du. Memory for autonomous llm agents: Mecha- nisms, evaluation, and emerging frontiers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07670, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Video-mme: The first-ever comprehensive evaluation benchmark of multi-modal llms in video analysis, 2025

    Chaoyou Fu, Yuhan Dai, Yongdong Luo, Lei Li, Shuhuai Ren, Renrui Zhang, Zihan Wang, Chenyu Zhou, Yunhang Shen, Mengdan Zhang, Peixian Chen, Yanwei Li, Shaohui Lin, Sirui Zhao, Ke Li, Tong Xu, Xiawu Zheng, Enhong Chen, Caifeng Shan, Ran He, and Xing Sun. Video-mme: The first-ever comprehensive evaluation benchmark of multi-modal llms in video analysis, 202...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Kristen Grauman, Andrew Westbury, Eugene Byrne, Zachary Chavis, Antonino Furnari, Rohit Girdhar, Jack- son Hamburger, Hao Jiang, Miao Liu, Xingyu Liu, Miguel Martin, Tushar Nagarajan, Ilija Radosavovic, Santhosh Kumar Ramakrishnan, Fiona Ryan, Jayant Sharma, Michael Wray, Mengmeng Xu, Eric Zhongcong Xu, Chen Zhao, Siddhant Bansal, Dhruv Batra, Vincent Car...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    Hybrid computing using a neural network with dynamic external memory.Nature, 538(7626):471–476, 2016

    Alex Graves, Greg Wayne, Malcolm Reynolds, Tim Harley, Ivo Danihelka, Agnieszka Grabska-Barwi ´nska, Sergio Gómez Colmenarejo, Edward Grefenstette, Tiago Ramalho, John Agapiou, et al. Hybrid computing using a neural network with dynamic external memory.Nature, 538(7626):471–476, 2016

    2016

  14. [14]

    Realm: Retrieval-augmented language model pre-training, 2020

    Kelvin Guu, Kenton Lee, Zora Tung, Panupong Pasupat, and Ming-Wei Chang. Realm: Retrieval-augmented language model pre-training, 2020. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2002.08909

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Yoon, Mouli Siva- purapu, and Jian Zhang

    Ryan Hoque, Peide Huang, David J. Yoon, Mouli Siva- purapu, and Jian Zhang. Egodex: Learning dexterous manipulation from large-scale egocentric video, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11709

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models, 2022

    Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Ted Xiao, Harris Chan, Jacky Liang, Pete Florence, Andy Zeng, Jonathan Tompson, Igor Mordatch, Yevgen Chebotar, Pierre Sermanet, Noah Brown, Tomas Jackson, Linda Luu, Sergey Levine, Karol Hausman, and Brian Ichter. Inner monologue: Embodied reasoning through planning with language models, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.05608

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Selective question answering under domain shift, 2020

    Amita Kamath, Robin Jia, and Percy Liang. Selective question answering under domain shift, 2020. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2006.09462

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Egomimic: Scaling imitation learning via egocentric video, 2024

    Simar Kareer, Dhruv Patel, Ryan Punamiya, Pranay Mathur, Shuo Cheng, Chen Wang, Judy Hoffman, and Danfei Xu. Egomimic: Scaling imitation learning via egocentric video, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410. 24221

    2024

  19. [19]

    Laird.The Soar Cognitive Architecture

    John E. Laird.The Soar Cognitive Architecture. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2012

    2012

  20. [20]

    Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering, 2019

    Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova. Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering, 2019. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1906. 00300

    2019

  21. [21]

    Robomemory: A brain-inspired multi-memory agentic framework for interactive environmental learning in physical embodied systems, 2026

    Mingcong Lei, Honghao Cai, Yuyuan Yang, Yimou Wu, Jinke Ren, Zezhou Cui, Liangchen Tan, Junkun Hong, Gehan Hu, Shuangyu Zhu, Shaohan Jiang, Ge Wang, Junyuan Tan, Zhenglin Wan, Zheng Li, Zhen Li, Shuguang Cui, Yiming Zhao, and Yatong Han. Robomemory: A brain-inspired multi-memory agentic framework for interactive environmental learning in physical embodied...

    arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Mas- querade: Learning from in-the-wild human videos using data-editing, 2025

    Marion Lepert, Jiaying Fang, and Jeannette Bohg. Mas- querade: Learning from in-the-wild human videos using data-editing, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09976

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks, 2021

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks, 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Mvbench: A comprehensive multi- modal video understanding benchmark, 2024

    Kunchang Li, Yali Wang, Yinan He, Yizhuo Li, Yi Wang, Yi Liu, Zun Wang, Jilan Xu, Guo Chen, Ping Luo, Limin Wang, and Yu Qiao. Mvbench: A comprehensive multi- modal video understanding benchmark, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2311.17005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control, 2023

    Jacky Liang, Wenlong Huang, Fei Xia, Peng Xu, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Pete Florence, and Andy Zeng. Code as policies: Language model programs for embodied control, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.07753

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Activemimic: Egocentric video pretraining with active perception, 2026

    Xingyao Lin, Guojin Zhong, Tianyi Lu, Ziyi Ye, Yichen Zhu, Zuxuan Wu, and Yu-Gang Jiang. Activemimic: Egocentric video pretraining with active perception, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.06194

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Egoengine: From egocentric human videos to high-fidelity dexterous robot demonstrations,

    Yangcen Liu, Shuo Cheng, Xinchen Yin, Woo Chul Shin, Alfred Cueva, Yiran Yang, Zhenyang Chen, Chuye Zhang, and Danfei Xu. Egoengine: From egocentric human videos to high-fidelity dexterous robot demonstrations,

  28. [28]

    Seeing, listening, remembering, and reasoning: A multimodal agent with long-term memory, 2025

    Lin Long, Yichen He, Wentao Ye, Yiyuan Pan, Yuan Lin, Hang Li, Junbo Zhao, and Wei Li. Seeing, listening, remembering, and reasoning: A multimodal agent with long-term memory, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508. 09736

    2025

  29. [29]

    Brainmem: Brain-inspired evolving memory for embodied agent task planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.16331, 2026

    Xiaoyu Ma, Lianyu Hu, Wenbing Tang, Zixuan Hu, Zeqin Liao, Zhizhen Wu, and Yang Liu. Brainmem: Brain-inspired evolving memory for embodied agent task planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.16331, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Evaluating very long-term conversational memory of llm agents, 2024

    Adyasha Maharana, Dong-Ho Lee, Sergey Tulyakov, Mohit Bansal, Francesco Barbieri, and Yuwei Fang. Evaluating very long-term conversational memory of llm agents, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.17753

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric memories, 2023

    Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric memories, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10511

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Egoschema: A diagnostic benchmark for very long-form video language understanding, 2023

    Karttikeya Mangalam, Raiymbek Akshulakov, and Jiten- dra Malik. Egoschema: A diagnostic benchmark for very long-form video language understanding, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.09126

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    McClelland, Bruce L

    James L. McClelland, Bruce L. McNaughton, and Ran- dall C. O’Reilly. Why there are complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: Insights from the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory.Psychological Review, 102(3): 419–457, 1995

    1995

  34. [34]

    Locating and editing factual associations in gpt, 2023

    Kevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, and Yonatan Belinkov. Locating and editing factual associations in gpt, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.05262

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [35]

    Manning, and Chelsea Finn

    Eric Mitchell, Charles Lin, Antoine Bosselut, Christo- pher D. Manning, and Chelsea Finn. Memory-based model editing at scale, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2206.06520

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  36. [36]

    Cranimem: Cranial inspired gated and bounded memory for agentic systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15642, 2026

    Pearl Mody, Mihir Panchal, Rishit Kar, Kiran Bhowmick, and Ruhina Karani. Cranimem: Cranial inspired gated and bounded memory for agentic systems.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15642, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Memory traces unbound.Trends in Neurosciences, 26(2):65–72, 2003

    Karim Nader. Memory traces unbound.Trends in Neurosciences, 26(2):65–72, 2003

    2003

  38. [38]

    Egoaero: Learning dexterous manipulation from a single egocentric video without object assets, 2026

    Yichen Niu, Haoran Lv, Xinrui Zhang, Xueyao Wan, Shiyu Gao, Ying Ai, Hui Xu, Yongqi Hu, Hengyi Zhang, Yang Xie, Zhaxizhuoma, Yue Zhao, Zhenshan Bing, Yan Ding, and Jianxing Liu. Egoaero: Learning dexterous manipulation from a single egocentric video without object assets, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.08057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Patil, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E

    Charles Packer, Sarah Wooders, Kevin Lin, Vivian Fang, Shishir G. Patil, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. Memgpt: Towards llms as operating systems, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    O’Brien, Carrie J

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph C. O’Brien, Carrie J. Cai, Mered- ith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behav- ior, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    Ryan Punamiya, Simar Kareer, Zeyi Liu, Josh Citron, Ri-Zhao Qiu, Xiongyi Cai, Alexey Gavryushin, Jiaqi Chen, Davide Liconti, Lawrence Y . Zhu, Patcharapong Aphiwetsa, Baoyu Li, Aniketh Cheluva, Pranav Kuppili, Yangcen Liu, Dhruv Patel, Aidan Gao, Hye-Young Chung, Ryan Co, Renee Zbizika, Jeff Liu, Xiaomeng Xu, Haoyu Xiong, Geng Chen, Sebastiano Oliani, Che...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context, 2023

    Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2302. 00093

    2023

  43. [43]

    Robert Stickgold and Matthew P. Walker. Sleep-dependent memory consolidation.Nature, 437:1272–1278, 2005

    2005

  44. [44]

    Episodic and semantic memory.Organi- zation of Memory, pages 381–403, 1972

    Endel Tulving. Episodic and semantic memory.Organi- zation of Memory, pages 381–403, 1972

    1972

  45. [45]

    Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training, 2024

    Liang Wang, Nan Yang, Xiaolong Huang, Binxing Jiao, Linjun Yang, Daxin Jiang, Rangan Majumder, and Furu Wei. Text embeddings by weakly-supervised contrastive pre-training, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.03533

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    Humanego: Zero-shot robot learning from minutes of human egocen- tric videos, 2026

    Zhi Wang, Botao He, Kelin Yu, Seungjae Lee, Ruohan Gao, Furong Huang, and Yiannis Aloimonos. Humanego: Zero-shot robot learning from minutes of human egocen- tric videos, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.24934

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Mem- ory networks, 2015

    Jason Weston, Sumit Chopra, and Antoine Bordes. Mem- ory networks, 2015. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3916

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  48. [48]

    Longmemeval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory, 2025

    Di Wu, Hongwei Wang, Wenhao Yu, Yuwei Zhang, Kai- Wei Chang, and Dong Yu. Longmemeval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10813

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Pan, Hinrich Schütze, V olker Tresp, and Yunpu Ma

    Sikuan Yan, Xiufeng Yang, Zuchao Huang, Ercong Nie, Zifeng Ding, Zonggen Li, Xiaowen Ma, Jinhe Bi, Kristian Kersting, Jeff Z. Pan, Hinrich Schütze, V olker Tresp, and Yunpu Ma. Memory-r1: Enhancing large language model agents to manage and utilize memories via reinforcement learning, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.19828

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Egovla: Learning vision- language-action models from egocentric human videos,

    Ruihan Yang, Qinxi Yu, Yecheng Wu, Rui Yan, Borui Li, An-Chieh Cheng, Xueyan Zou, Yunhao Fang, Xuxin Cheng, Ri-Zhao Qiu, Hongxu Yin, Sifei Liu, Song Han, Yao Lu, and Xiaolong Wang. Egovla: Learning vision- language-action models from egocentric human videos,

  51. [51]

    3d-mem: 3d scene memory for embodied exploration and reasoning,

    Yuncong Yang, Han Yang, Jiachen Zhou, Peihao Chen, Hongxin Zhang, Yilun Du, and Chuang Gan. 3d-mem: 3d scene memory for embodied exploration and reasoning,

  52. [52]

    React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models,

  53. [53]

    Auto- dreamer: Learning offline memory consolidation for language agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.20616, 2026

    Chongrui Ye, Yuxiang Liu, Yu Wang, Haofei Yu, Yining Zhao, Ge Liu, Julian McAuley, and Jiaxuan You. Auto- dreamer: Learning offline memory consolidation for language agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.20616, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context, 2024

    Ori Yoran, Tomer Wolfson, Ori Ram, and Jonathan Berant. Making retrieval-augmented language models robust to irrelevant context, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2310. 01558

    2024

  55. [55]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.17735

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  56. [56]

    Socratic models: Composing zero-shot multimodal reasoning with language, 2022

    Andy Zeng, Maria Attarian, Brian Ichter, Krzysztof Choro- manski, Adrian Wong, Stefan Welker, Federico Tombari, Aveek Purohit, Michael Ryoo, Vikas Sindhwani, Johnny Lee, Vincent Vanhoucke, and Pete Florence. Socratic models: Composing zero-shot multimodal reasoning with language, 2022. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.00598

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03629

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  58. [58]

    Egoscale: Scaling dexterous manipulation with diverse egocentric human data, 2026

    Ruijie Zheng, Dantong Niu, Yuqi Xie, Jing Wang, Mengda Xu, Yunfan Jiang, Fernando Castañeda, Fengyuan Hu, You Liang Tan, Letian Fu, Trevor Darrell, Furong Huang, Yuke Zhu, Danfei Xu, and Linxi Fan. Egoscale: Scaling dexterous manipulation with diverse egocentric human data, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.16710

    arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Mayol-Cuevas, and Junxiao Shen

    Xinyi Zheng, Yunze Liu, Chi-Hao Wu, Fan Zhang, Hao Zheng, Wenqi Zhou, Walterio W. Mayol-Cuevas, and Junxiao Shen. Spatialmem: Metric-aligned long-horizon video memory for language grounding and qa, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.14895

    arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Egomi: Learning active vision and whole-body manipulation from egocentric human demonstrations, 2025

    Justin Yu, Yide Shentu, Di Wu, Pieter Abbeel, Ken Goldberg, and Philipp Wu. Egomi: Learning active vision and whole-body manipulation from egocentric human demonstrations, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2511. 00153

    2025

  61. [62]

    A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model based agents, 2024

    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, 2024. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2404.13501

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [65]

    Memorybank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory, 2023

    Wanjun Zhong, Lianghong Guo, Qiqi Gao, He Ye, and Yanlin Wang. Memorybank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory, 2023. URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2305.10250. APPENDIX a) Appendix roadmap.:The appendix is organized around construction, evaluation, and controlled analysis. Appendix 0a specifies the memory-bank construction pipeline from ego...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [66]

    Longitudinal egocentric evidence EPIC-KITCHENS RGB videos plus participant IDs, video IDs, narrations, verb–noun labels, and timestamps. ↓ 2a. Held-out benchmark tasks held-out tasks Embodied Memory questions and Planning requests with auditable references. 2b. MEMORA memory bank from video Formed by watching egocentric sessions; typedEnviron- ment Memory...

  64. [67]

    Memory-conditioned agent retrieve + respond At evaluation time, the agent receives a benchmark item and may retrieve from the corresponding memory interface. ↓

  65. [68]

    Metric computation scores QA accuracy and E-selection diagnostics for Embodied Memory; OrderExec, KeyObj, PrefAdh, and their unweighted mean (RGP, Robot-Grounded Plan score) for Planning, plus a separate object-grounding diagnostic. Fig. 5:Appendix visual roadmap for MEMORA-Bench.The appendix separates four concepts that are easy to conflate: longitudinal...

  66. [69]

    Egocentric videos video input EPIC-KITCHENS-100 extension RGB sessions for one participant, segmented into non-overlapping 10-second turns. ↓

  67. [70]

    Online memory formation

    Perception Processor VLM Each turn becomes layered observations: environment layout, activity narrative, and object registry entries. Online memory formation

  68. [71]

    Online Memory Processor state edits New observations update persistentEnvironment Memory,Entity Memory, andActivity Memorythrough ordered add/update/delete/noop decisions. ↓

  69. [72]

    Participant-level consolidation

    Per-video typed memory memory bank Environment logs, activity logs, and object state histories are written with timestamps and evidence links. Participant-level consolidation

  70. [73]

    Offline Consolidation Processor cross-video Completed videos are summarized into participant preferences, habits, and repeated action patterns. ↓

  71. [74]

    Inferred Knowledge enrichment planning memory Routine-skill indices, generated preferences, retrieval text, and key objects are added for planning. ↓

  72. [75]

    dirty utensils are washed at the sink before reuse

    Participant memory bank memory bank The resulting memory slice is exposed to downstream agents under temporal and participant-scope controls. Fig. 6:MEMORA memory-bank construction pipeline.The system watches egocentric videos turn by turn, converts each clip into structured observations, updates typed memory online, and then consolidates participant-leve...

  73. [76]

    Held-out benchmark item from benchmark Either a MEMORA-Embodied Memory Assessment (EAM-QA) question or a MEMORA-Planning request with reference evidence. ↓

  74. [77]

    Agent execution

    Scoped memory interface retrieval substrate QA uses a time-restricted memory snapshot before task; Planning uses the participant’s consolidatedInferred Knowledge. Agent execution

  75. [78]

    Retrieval and tool calls ReAct loop The agent searches or calls typed memory tools under a fixed budget while the answer/planner backbone is held constant. ↓

  76. [79]

    Final response commit Embodied Memory emits one EAM-QA letter A–E; Planning emits an ordered executable plan. Scoring

  77. [80]

    after X, what next?

    Rule-based metric computation metrics QA is scored by accuracy, E-selection rate, and per-type aggregation; Planning is scored by the Robot- Grounded Plan score (RGP), the unweighted mean of OrderExec, KeyObj, and PrefAdh; object-vocabulary grounding is reported as a separate diagnostic. Fig. 9:Memory-conditioned evaluation and scoring loop.The benchmark ...

  78. [81]

    Longitudinal action evidence annotation input EPIC-KITCHENS-100 extension narrations for one participant. ↓

  79. [82]

    Behavioral statistics deterministic Verb/object counts, verb–object pairs, trigger→next tables, and verb bigrams. ↓

  80. [83]

    Question synthesis

    Session digests LLM Per-video goal summaries, key action sequences, and objects/tools. Question synthesis

Showing first 80 references.