Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 73 references

When Memory Updates but Behavior Does Not: Repairing Implicit Stale Dependencies in Personalized Agent Responses

T0 review · 2 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 Auditing stored state against the draft, rather than the draft against memory, repairs stale-dependency failures that persist even when an agent knows a stored fact is outdated, lifting accuracy by 5.0 points on STALE's 400-scenario…

desk verdict A well-controlled systems paper with a genuinely new state-to-draft verification direction; the +5.0 point STALE gain is credible but the human-validation gap and retrieval recall bound keep it from being settled. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.01619 v1 pith:M7DQOJQD submitted 2026-08-03 cs.AI

Haofei Sun , Lin He This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords memory-augmentedagentsimplicitpolicyadaptationstalememorystate-to-draftverificationprovenance-verifiedtransitionassemblypersonalizedassistantsresponserepairbenchmark
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The paper tries to establish that a personal assistant can know a stored fact is outdated and still produce a response built around the old value, and that this failure has a fixable structural cause on the response side. The cause it identifies is draft-anchored verification: checking what a response says misses the stale dependencies the response never states. Its remedy audits in the opposite direction, from stored state to draft, and lets only provenance-verified old-to-new transitions trigger a typed repair. On STALE's full 400-scenario protocol this state-to-draft repair scores .736 against .686 for the paper's locked predecessor under the same judge, a +5.0-point paired gain concentrated in implicit policy adaptation and premise resistance, and a matched control shows the gain does not come from added evidence or calls. If the claim is right, it gives a concrete, evidence-grounded way to make personalized agents behave consistently with a user's current state without retraining the generator.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is provenance-verified transition assembly (VTA): an LLM proposes candidate old-to-new transitions from timestamped memory entries, and deterministic code authorizes a transition only when each evidence quotation matches at least 80% of the content tokens of a single rendered memory entry, the entry's own timestamp is later than the old entry's, both state values are present, the change is material to the response, and the causal path has at least two nodes. What is verified is provenance and chronology, not semantic supersession; the validator never decides whether the new state truly supersedes the old. Verified-only authority means a repair directive fires only through an authorized transition, while unverified verdicts cannot override the validated chronology. This state-anchored pass is what lets the system catch stale dependencies that are unstated in an open-ended response, the failure mode that draft-anchored claim extraction misses.

What would settle it

Run the strict STALE protocol again with the change-scan retrieval slots disabled—the query-independent disclosure windows that recover superseding evidence—and compare strict VTA with the matched control; if the +5.0-point gain survives without that evidence being retrieved, the paper's attribution of the gain to the transition machinery rather than retrieval is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the implicit policy adaptation gap—an agent that knows a stored state is outdated yet still behaves from the old value—has a structural, fixable cause on the response side. The cause is draft-anchored verification: checking what a draft says misses dependencies the draft never states. StateAuditor reverses the audit direction, and provenance-verified transition assembly (VTA) lets only transitions with matched quotations and later timestamps authorize repair. Under STALE's strict full protocol (400 scenarios, 50-session histories, one independent response per query), strict single-query VTA scores .736 versus .686 for the locked predecessor under the same judge: a +5.0-point paired gain (95% CI [+2.9, +7.2]) that comes almost entirely from implicit policy adaptation and premise resistance. The result is reproduced by the benchmark's judge from a different model family (.738 versus .680), and a matched control with identical evidence, adapter, and call budget recovers only +0.6 points, attributing the gain to the transition machinery itself.

Load-bearing premise

The system can repair a stale dependency only when the retrieval step actually surfaces the superseding evidence, and in the official 400-scenario set pooled strict window-level recall of the old/new pair is 0.580, so if retrieval quality is lower in deployment, the measured gain would shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On STALE's strict full protocol, the state-to-draft transition repair outscores the locked predecessor by 5.0 paired points under the same judge, with the gain concentrated in implicit policy adaptation and premise resistance.
  • A matched control that keeps the same evidence, adapter, and call budget but removes the transition machinery recovers only 0.6 points over the predecessor, so the measured improvement is not from extra context or extra calls.
  • A judge from a different model family reproduces the gain (.738 vs .680), and three independent full-400 draws land at .733 ± .002, so the headline comparison is not tied to a single judge or a single draw.
  • Draft-anchored verification methods, whatever their scale, are structurally blind to the relevant failure: stale-premise recall collapses to 0.06–0.38 on open-ended probes where the dependency is unstated.
  • The method's reach is bounded: on HorizonBench most of the external gain comes from the draft-side audit itself, and on a harder authored lifecycle set there is no gain, so the paper's claim is about the studied settings, not general-purpose agent memory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that evaluation of personalized agents should include counterfactual state-change probes—changing the stored state and checking whether open-ended behavior changes—because stated-content checks cannot see unsaid dependencies.
  • Because the validated gate is purely chronological and provenance-based, a cheap deterministic prefilter of this kind could be paired with a later semantic supersession check; the paper notes a semantic second gate reduces over-repairs on a hard set without changing accuracy, suggesting the two checks are complementary.
  • The T2 (implicit-conflict) premise-resistance and state-resolution regressions observed under the repair-only policy hint that some implicit conflicts are better handled by asking the user rather than repairing silently; routing by conflict type and confirmability is a testable extension.
  • Retrieval recall of 0.580 bounds the pipeline's ceiling, so improving lifecycle-aware retrieval—for example, detecting life-event disclosures by their event structure rather than lexical overlap—should transfer directly into further STALE gains.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims that draft-anchored verification of generated responses misses implicit stale dependencies in open-ended personalized requests, and proposes StateAuditor, a post-generation audit-repair pipeline whose core is provenance-verified transition assembly (VTA): extract user-state premises from draft and question, build a state timeline, propose candidate old-to-new transitions from timestamped evidence, deterministically validate quotation grounding and chronology, and regenerate under typed directives. On STALE's full-history strict protocol, strict single-query VTA scores .736 versus .686 for the locked predecessor, a +5.0-point paired gain (95% CI [+2.9,+7.2], 84:37 scenarios), reproduced by the disjoint Gemini judge (.738 vs .680); a matched no-transition control scores .692 (+0.6, n.s.), which the paper uses to attribute the gain to the transition machinery. A privileged scenario-joint variant (.879) is reported explicitly as an upper bound. External transfer on HorizonBench is mostly attributable to the draft-side audit, and a harder authored set shows no gain; over-correction, cost, and latency are measured, and artifacts are released.

Significance. If the result holds, this is a useful and unusually well-scoped contribution: it identifies a structural blind spot in claim-based verification, introduces a deterministic provenance/chronology gate, and backs the headline with a matched control, a disjoint-judge reproduction, contamination audits, and released per-item records. The paper is also commendably explicit about its boundaries: post-development full-set use, same-family judge risk, a failed 4B distillation, a harder set with no gain, and no deployment claim. The main residual risk is that the headline effect is a small (+5.0-point) measured difference under LLM rubric judges over outputs that differ in surface form, with no human validation on the strict 400-scenario arm; this is the load-bearing uncertainty in the causal attribution.

major comments (2)
  1. [§6.1, Table 1; §5 Blind human protocol; §7 Limitations] The central claim that the transition machinery, rather than output form or added context, causes the +5.0-point gain is not yet fully supported. In the strict arm the proposer, adapter, and primary judge are all gpt-5.5, and the disjoint Gemini judge is still an LLM rubric judge; the paper's own limitations section acknowledges the same-family self-preference risk. The human evaluation covers only the scenario-joint ranking, with per-cell annotator agreement κ=0.126, and does not validate the strict 400-scenario comparison. Repaired outputs differ from predecessor outputs in surface form (for example, the one-sentence acknowledgment in correct-and-inform), and the matched no-transition control holds evidence and call budget constant but not output text. A blind human evaluation on a sample of strict-arm changed cells, or an equivalent surface-form control (for example, scoring de-acknowledged or length-matched outputs), is needed to establish that the gain reflects state adaptation rather than judge preference for repair form; without it, the causal attribution should be stated as conditional on rubric-judge validity.
  2. [§4.1 and §6.1] The strict VTA gain can only fire when the old/new evidence pair is retrieved, and the pooled strict window-level recall is .580, so on roughly 40% of the 400 scenarios the transition machinery has no verified pair to act on. The paper is honest that the audit can adjudicate only retrieved evidence, but the headline comparison currently mixes the retrieval stage with the repair stage. I request a decomposition of the strict paired gain on the subset of scenarios where the old/new pair was retrieved versus the complement, so readers can see how much of the +5.0 points is attributable to repair conditional on successful retrieval and how sensitive the result is to retrieval quality. This is a boundary analysis rather than an invalidation, but it is important for interpreting the operating envelope of the method.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §4.5] The abstract says 'lets only these verified transitions trigger repair,' but §4.5 states that without a verified transition the system falls back to base-audit verdicts whose material STALE/UNKNOWN findings can still fire repair or verify directives. This is clarified in the body, but the abstract should be reworded to say that the gate constrains the transition channel, not the base audit, to avoid overstating the gate's authority.
  2. [§5 Blind human protocol] Given the low per-cell agreement (κ=0.126), the paper should report the raw per-annotator confusion matrices and consider a third adjudicator or a consensus pass; as written, the per-annotator McNemar tests are suggestive but the absolute reliability of the labels is hard to assess.
  3. [§6.1 and Implementation details] The paper reports three independent full-400 draws of strict VTA scoring .733±0.002, while the implementation note says each arm is one sampled output per item unless identified as a replicate; please clarify exactly how the three draws differ and whether judge stochasticity is included in the reported confidence intervals.
  4. [Table 2 and §6.1 matched control] Table 2 lists strict VTA evidence as 'per-query+exp.' while the predecessor row is 'per-query'; since the matched control is described as having the same evidence as strict VTA, the paper should state explicitly that the control also received the expanded evidence, so readers do not confuse the evidence-expansion effect with the transition-machinery effect.
  5. [§6.4] The LoCoMo false-invalidation rate is correctly labeled an upper bound; consider also reporting a precision-oriented subset with gold conflict labels, if any exist, to complement the construction-labeled safety suite.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the headline +5.0-point STALE gain is a controlled empirical comparison with a matched no-transition control, not a derivation from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is empirical: strict single-query VTA scores .736 against .686 for a locked predecessor under a fixed judge, and a matched control with the same evidence, adapter, and call budget but with the transition machinery removed scores only .692, with strict VTA beating it by +4.4 points (p<10^-9). No fitted constant is inserted to produce these numbers; the transition gate is deterministic provenance and chronology validation, and the paper explicitly defines Dep(d) as a counterfactual that is estimated at runtime rather than tuned. Development and evaluation are separated and disclosed: development used frozen slices of at most 50 items, and the strict full-400 confirmation was run after development with pre-fixed configurations and no prompt tuning on the full test set. The acknowledged same-family judge risk for gpt-5.5 is a validity threat, not a circular reduction, and the paper offers a disjoint Gemini judge reproduction (.738 vs .680), a deterministic Qwen3-4B re-judge reproducing the ordering, and blind human annotation on the scenario-joint arm, while disclosing the low per-cell agreement (kappa=0.126). External benchmarks (HorizonBench, LongMemEval, LoCoMo, MemoryAgentBench) and a harder authored set bound the claim, including the explicit finding that most of the HorizonBench gain is the draft-side audit rather than the transition machinery. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: STALE and HorizonBench are cited as external benchmarks from other author groups. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or self-citations, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The headline comparison is empirical and does not depend on fitted equations, so the free-parameter count is low. The main assumptions are domain-level: retrieval must surface superseding evidence, LLM judgments can estimate counterfactual dependencies, and timestamps are reliable. The paper's own numbers show the retrieval assumption is only partially met (pooled recall .580), which is why the transition machinery can only fire on the scenarios where it has evidence.

free parameters (5)
  • Quotation token-match threshold = 80% content-token overlap within a single rendered memory entry
    Hand-chosen threshold for deterministic provenance pinning in §4.4; not fitted to target scores but controls which candidates can authorize a repair.
  • Minimal causal path length = 2 nodes
    Hand-chosen structural constraint on the causal path required for transition authorization in §4.4.
  • Retrieval evidence budget = ~5.7K tokens on frozen dev slice
    Ablated on the frozen dev slice in §4.1; part of the evidence pipeline that bounds how much superseding evidence can be seen.
  • Synthetic data correct-draft fraction = 35% correct by construction
    Chosen in §4.6 to supervise over-correction control in the 4B auditor; affects the distilled auditor, not the headline gpt-5.5 results.
  • Number of audit calls per query = 5 audit calls plus 1 transition proposal, 6 total
    Fixed protocol in §6.1; the matched control uses the same budget, so it is a controlled design choice rather than a fitted parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption LLM consistency judgments can estimate whether a draft depends on a changed attribute (membership in Dep(d)∩C) without performing the counterfactual state intervention.
    Stated in §3: 'Dep(d) is a counterfactual definition, not a direct observable: at runtime an LLM consistency judgment estimates membership rather than performing the state intervention.'
  • domain assumption Retrieval over full histories captures enough superseding evidence to enumerate the changed set C.
    Used throughout §4.1 and §4.3; pooled strict window-level recall is .580, so this assumption is only partially satisfied and is reported as a limitation.
  • domain assumption Memory entry timestamps are reliable and the store is ordered oldest-first, so t_new > t_old is a meaningful chronology check.
    Assumed in the problem setup (§3) and used by the deterministic validator in §4.4.
  • domain assumption The STALE released judge and the disjoint Gemini judge measure response quality well enough that score deltas reflect behavioral repair.
    Used in §6.1; partially supported by a disjoint judge and blind annotation, but human agreement is low (κ=0.126).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When Memory Updates but Behavior Does Not: Repairing Implicit Stale Dependencies in Personalized Agent Responses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/M7DQOJQD

@misc{pith2026260801619,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When Memory Updates but Behavior Does Not: Repairing Implicit Stale Dependencies in Personalized Agent Responses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/M7DQOJQD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01619}
}
read the original abstract

Memory-augmented agents can know that a user's stored state is outdated and still plan around the old value. The STALE benchmark calls this the implicit policy adaptation (IPA) gap. We identify one structural contributor: draft-anchored verification checks what a response says, and in an open-ended response the stale dependency is usually unsaid. StateAuditor therefore audits in the opposite direction, from stored state to draft. An LLM proposes candidate old-to-new transitions from timestamped evidence; deterministic code pins each quotation to a single entry, checks that the new evidence really is newer, and lets only these verified transitions trigger repair. What is verified is provenance and chronology - not semantic supersession. On STALE's full protocol (400 scenarios, 50-session histories, one independent response per query), strict single-query VTA scores .736 against .686 for our locked predecessor under the same judge: a +5.0-point paired gain (95% CI [+2.9, +7.2]) coming almost entirely from IPA and premise resistance (PR). The benchmark's own judge, from a third model family, reproduces the gain (.738 vs. .680). On an independent cross-family preference-evolution benchmark (HorizonBench), the full draft-audit-repair pipeline over a gold-derived structured store raises current-preference accuracy (user-clustered p<.01), though a matched control shows most of this external gain is the draft-side audit itself; a harder authored lifecycle set gives no gain, bounding the claim while false invalidation stays controlled. On STALE, by contrast, a matched control (same evidence, adapter, and call budget) scores only .692 (+0.6 over the predecessor, n.s.), attributing the STALE gain to the transition machinery rather than added context or calls. We make no claim about general-purpose agent memory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.01619 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Draft-anchored verification blindness: stale [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. StateAuditor on a worked example: the weekend-ideas draft still leans on Seattle after the move to Austin. The draft-anchored pass adjudicates premises the draft states or presupposes; the state-anchored pass checks the draft’s substance against each changed attribute’s current value. Merged verdicts drive typed regeneration: repair, correct-and-inform, or verify (answer, then ask). A provenance- and chronology-veri… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Paired scenario wins (blue, right) and losses (or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accuracy vs. conflict-free rewrite triggering ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Chao, H.; Bai, Y.; Sheng, R.; Li, T.; and Sun, Y. 2026. STALE : Can LLM Agents Know When Their Memories Are No Longer Valid? arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.06527

    arXiv 2026

  2. [2]

    Chen, A.; Pasupat, P.; Singh, S.; Lee, H.; and Guu, K. 2023. PURR : Efficiently Editing Language Model Hallucinations by Denoising Language Model Corruptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14908

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Chen, Y.-P.; Nishida, N.; Nakayama, H.; and Matsumoto, Y. 2025. Post Persona Alignment for Multi-Session Dialogue Generation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, 20184--20192

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Chhikara, P.; Khant, D.; Aryan, S.; Singh, T.; and Yadav, D. 2025. Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19413

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Dhuliawala, S.; Komeili, M.; Xu, J.; Raileanu, R.; Li, X.; Celikyilmaz, A.; and Weston, J. 2024. Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models. In Findings of ACL. ArXiv:2309.11495

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    T.; Fan, Y.; Zhao, V

    Gao, L.; Dai, Z.; Pasupat, P.; Chen, A.; Chaganty, A. T.; Fan, Y.; Zhao, V. Y.; Lao, N.; Lee, H.; Juan, D.-C.; and Guu, K. 2023. RARR : Researching and Revising What Language Models Say, Using Language Models. In Proceedings of ACL. ArXiv:2210.08726

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Guo, D.; Wu, J.; and Yiu, S. M. 2026. FinGround : Detecting and Grounding Financial Hallucinations via Atomic Claim Verification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.23588

    arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Hu, Y.; Long, Z.; Guo, J.; Sui, X.; Fu, X.; Zhao, W.; Zhao, Y.; and Qin, B. 2026. OP-Bench : Benchmarking Over-Personalization for Memory-Augmented Personalized Conversational Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.13722

    arXiv 2026

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Hu, Y.; Wang, Y.; and McAuley, J. 2025. Evaluating Memory in LLM Agents via Incremental Multi-Turn Interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05257

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Huang, T.; Yang, C.; Yin, E.; Wang, E.; and Zhang, M. 2026. PAVE : Premise-Aware Validation and Editing for Retrieval-Augmented LLMs . arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.20673

    2026

  3. [12]

    Li, F.; Li, J.; Ma, S.; and Liu, Y. 2026 a . Verification-Gated Persona State Transitions for Memory-Augmented Language Agents. Symmetry, 18(6): 1037

    2026

  4. [14]

    Liu, J.; Ye, X.; Xia, P.; Zheng, Z.; Xie, C.; Ding, M.; and Yao, H. 2026. EvolveMem : Self-Evolving Memory Architecture via AutoResearch for LLM Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.13941

    2026 arXiv

  5. [15]

    Long, X.; Chen, Z.; Zeng, S.; Wang, S.; Guo, K.; and Tang, J. 2026. MemTrace : Probing What Final Accuracy Misses in Long-Term Memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.17328

    2026 arXiv

  6. [16]

    Lv, C.; Chang, H.; Tao, S.; Chen, M.; Fan, Z.; Zhang, Z.; Guo, Y.; and Zhou, S. 2026. All-Mem : Agentic Lifelong Memory via Dynamic Topology Evolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.19595

    2026

  7. [17]

    Maharana, A.; Lee, D.-H.; Tulyakov, S.; Bansal, M.; Barbieri, F.; and Fang, Y. 2024. Evaluating Very Long-Term Conversational Memory of LLM Agents. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)

    2024

  8. [18]

    Mishra, A.; Asai, A.; Balachandran, V.; Wang, Y.; Neubig, G.; Tsvetkov, Y.; and Hajishirzi, H. 2024. Fine-grained Hallucination Detection and Editing for Language Models. In COLM. ArXiv:2401.06855

    2024 arXiv

  9. [19]

    G.; Stoica, I.; and Gonzalez, J

    Packer, C.; Wooders, S.; Lin, K.; Fang, V.; Patil, S. G.; Stoica, I.; and Gonzalez, J. E. 2023. MemGPT : Towards LLM s as Operating Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08560

    2023 arXiv

  10. [20]

    Patel, V. 2026. Supersede: Diagnosing and Training the Memory-Update Gap in LLM Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.27472

    2026 arXiv

  11. [23]

    Reddy, V.; and Challaram, S. 2026. Don't Ask the LLM to Track Freshness: A Deterministic Recipe for Memory Conflict Resolution. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.01435

    2026 arXiv

  12. [24]

    Shi, Z.; Tang, Y.; and Tung, A. K. H. 2026. A-TMA : Decoupling State-Aware Memory Failures in Long-Term Agent Memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.01935

    2026 arXiv

  13. [25]

    Song, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, W.-N.; Liu, X.; and Liu, T. 2020 a . Generate, Delete and Rewrite: A Three-Stage Framework for Improving Persona Consistency of Dialogue Generation. In Proceedings of ACL. ArXiv:2004.07672

    2020 arXiv

  14. [26]

    Song, H.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, W.-N.; Zhao, Z.; Liu, T.; and Liu, X. 2020 b . Profile Consistency Identification for Open-domain Dialogue Agents. In Proceedings of EMNLP. ArXiv:2009.09680

    2020 arXiv

  15. [27]

    Tang, L.; Laban, P.; and Durrett, G. 2024. MiniCheck : Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documents. In Proceedings of EMNLP. ArXiv:2404.10774

    2024 arXiv

  16. [28]

    Tao, Z.; Zhao, J.; Liu, P.; Xi, D.; Chen, Y.; Xu, W.; and Li, Z. 2026. MemConflict : Evaluating Long-Term Memory Systems Under Memory Conflicts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.20926

    2026 arXiv

  17. [30]

    Wang, M.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Qiu, B.; Zhang, C.; Shen, J.; Yang, H.; and Miao, H. 2026. TRACE : State-Aware Query Processing over Temporal Evidence Graphs for Conversational Data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.00339

    2026 arXiv

  18. [32]

    Welleck, S.; Weston, J.; Szlam, A.; and Cho, K. 2019. Dialogue Natural Language Inference. In Proceedings of ACL. ArXiv:1811.00671

    2019 arXiv

  19. [33]

    Wu, D.; Wang, H.; Yu, W.; Zhang, Y.; Chang, K.-W.; and Yu, D. 2025. LongMemEval : Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2025

  20. [34]

    Yan, S.; Yang, X.; Huang, Z.; Nie, E.; Ding, Z.; Li, Z.; Ma, X.; Bi, J.; Kersting, K.; and Pan, J. Z. 2025. Memory- R1 : Enhancing Large Language Model Agents to Manage and Utilize Memories via Reinforcement Learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19828

    2025 arXiv

  21. [35]

    Yang, T.; Paul, S.; Srinivasan, V.; Kulkarni, V.; and Chappidi, S. 2026. TRUSTMEM : Learning Trustworthy Memory Consolidation for LLM Agents with Long-Term Memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.25161

    2026 arXiv

  22. [36]

    Zhao, R.; Li, X.; Joty, S.; Qin, C.; and Bing, L. 2023. Verify-and-Edit: A Knowledge-Enhanced Chain-of-Thought Framework. In Proceedings of ACL

    2023

  23. [37]

    Zhao, S.; Hong, M.; Liu, Y.; Hazarika, D.; and Lin, K. 2025. Do LLM s Recognize Your Preferences? Evaluating Personalized Preference Following in LLM s. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2025

  24. [38]

    Zhu, W.; Chen, X.; Wang, Z.; et al. 2026. AriadneMem : Threading the Maze of Lifelong Memory for LLM Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.03290

    2026

  25. [39]

    2023 , note=

    Gao, Luyu and Dai, Zhuyun and Pasupat, Panupong and Chen, Anthony and Chaganty, Arun Tejasvi and Fan, Yicheng and Zhao, Vincent Y and Lao, Ni and Lee, Hongrae and Juan, Da-Cheng and Guu, Kelvin , booktitle=. 2023 , note=

    2023

  26. [40]

    Findings of ACL , year=

    Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models , author=. Findings of ACL , year=

  27. [41]

    Proceedings of ACL , year=

    Verify-and-Edit: A Knowledge-Enhanced Chain-of-Thought Framework , author=. Proceedings of ACL , year=

  28. [42]

    COLM , year=

    Fine-grained Hallucination Detection and Editing for Language Models , author=. COLM , year=

  29. [43]

    Chen, Anthony and Pasupat, Panupong and Singh, Sameer and Lee, Hongrae and Guu, Kelvin , journal=

  30. [44]

    2024 , note=

    Tang, Liyan and Laban, Philippe and Durrett, Greg , booktitle=. 2024 , note=

    2024

  31. [45]

    Proceedings of ACL , year=

    Dialogue Natural Language Inference , author=. Proceedings of ACL , year=

  32. [46]

    Proceedings of ACL , year=

    Generate, Delete and Rewrite: A Three-Stage Framework for Improving Persona Consistency of Dialogue Generation , author=. Proceedings of ACL , year=

  33. [47]

    Proceedings of EMNLP , year=

    Profile Consistency Identification for Open-domain Dialogue Agents , author=. Proceedings of EMNLP , year=

  34. [48]

    Chao, Hanxiang and Bai, Yihan and Sheng, Rui and Li, Tianle and Sun, Yushi , journal=

  35. [49]

    , journal=

    Yan, Sikuan and Yang, Xiufeng and Huang, Zuchao and Nie, Ercong and Ding, Zifeng and Li, Zonggen and Ma, Xiaowen and Bi, Jinhe and Kersting, Kristian and Pan, Jeff Z. , journal=. Memory-

  36. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25911 , year=

    Mem- : Learning Memory Construction via Reinforcement Learning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.25911 , year=

    arXiv

  37. [51]

    Huang, Tianyi and Yang, Caden and Yin, Emily and Wang, Eric and Zhang, Michael , journal=

  38. [52]

    Guo, Dongxin and Wu, Jikun and Yiu, Siu Ming , journal=

  39. [53]

    Zhao, Siyan and Hong, Mingyi and Liu, Yang and Hazarika, Devamanyu and Lin, Kaixiang , booktitle=. Do

  40. [54]

    Mem0: Building Production-Ready

    Chhikara, Prateek and Khant, Dev and Aryan, Saket and Singh, Taranjeet and Yadav, Deshraj , journal=. Mem0: Building Production-Ready

  41. [55]

    and Stoica, Ion and Gonzalez, Joseph E

    Packer, Charles and Wooders, Sarah and Lin, Kevin and Fang, Vivian and Patil, Shishir G. and Stoica, Ion and Gonzalez, Joseph E. , journal=

  42. [56]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13956 , year=

    Zep: A Temporal Knowledge Graph Architecture for Agent Memory , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13956 , year=

    arXiv

  43. [57]

    Wu, Di and Wang, Hongwei and Yu, Wenhao and Zhang, Yuwei and Chang, Kai-Wei and Yu, Dong , booktitle=

  44. [58]

    Evaluating Memory in

    Hu, Yuanzhe and Wang, Yu and McAuley, Julian , journal=. Evaluating Memory in

  45. [59]

    Wang, Yuyao and Zhang, Zhongjian and Chi, Mo and Yu, Kaichi and Li, Yuhan and Peng, Miao and Tong, Bing and Zhang, Chen and Zhou, Yan and Li, Jia , journal=

  46. [60]

    Evaluating Very Long-Term Conversational Memory of

    Maharana, Adyasha and Lee, Dong-Ho and Tulyakov, Sergey and Bansal, Mohit and Barbieri, Francesco and Fang, Yuwei , booktitle=. Evaluating Very Long-Term Conversational Memory of

  47. [61]

    Supersede: Diagnosing and Training the Memory-Update Gap in

    Patel, Vedant , journal=. Supersede: Diagnosing and Training the Memory-Update Gap in

  48. [62]

    Don't Ask the

    Reddy, Vikas and Challaram, Sumanth , journal=. Don't Ask the

  49. [63]

    Tao, Zhen and Zhao, Jinxiang and Liu, Peng and Xi, Dinghao and Chen, Yanfang and Xu, Wei and Li, Zhiyu , journal=

  50. [64]

    Liu, Jiaqi and Ye, Xinyu and Xia, Peng and Zheng, Zeyu and Xie, Cihang and Ding, Mingyu and Yao, Huaxiu , journal=

  51. [65]

    Wang, Maolin and Wang, Yu and Liu, Zichun and Qiu, Baiyuan and Zhang, Chenbin and Shen, Jiguang and Yang, Haoran and Miao, Hao , journal=

  52. [66]

    Shi, Zitong and Tang, Yixuan and Tung, Anthony Kum Hoe , journal=

  53. [67]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.20006 , year=

    From Recall to Forgetting: Benchmarking Long-Term Memory for Personalized Agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.20006 , year=

    arXiv

  54. [68]

    Symmetry , volume=

    Verification-Gated Persona State Transitions for Memory-Augmented Language Agents , author=. Symmetry , volume=

  55. [69]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025 , pages=

    Post Persona Alignment for Multi-Session Dialogue Generation , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025 , pages=

    2025

  56. [70]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.16707 , year=

    User as Code: Executable Memory for Personalized Agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.16707 , year=

  57. [71]

    Yang, Tianyu and Paul, Sudipta and Srinivasan, Vijay and Kulkarni, Vivek and Chappidi, Srinivas , journal=

  58. [72]

    Zhu, Wenhui and Chen, Xiwen and Wang, Zhipeng and others , journal=

  59. [73]

    Lv, Can and Chang, Heng and Tao, Shengyu and Chen, Mingju and Fan, Zhaoxin and Zhang, Ziwei and Guo, Yuchen and Zhou, Shiji , journal=

  60. [74]

    2026 , howpublished=

    Pith Benchmark Evidence , author=. 2026 , howpublished=

    2026

  61. [75]

    2602.22769 , archivePrefix=

    Zhao, Yujie and Yuan, Boqin and Huang, Junbo and Yuan, Haocheng and Yu, Zhongming and Xu, Haozhou and Hu, Lanxiang and Shankarampeta, Abhilash and Huang, Zimeng and Ni, Wentao and Tian, Yuandong and Zhao, Jishen , year=. 2602.22769 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

  62. [76]

    Long, Xianxuan and Chen, Zhikai and Zeng, Shenglai and Wang, Shouren and Guo, Kai and Tang, Jiliang , journal=

  63. [77]

    Hu, Yulin and Long, Zimo and Guo, Jiahe and Sui, Xingyu and Fu, Xing and Zhao, Weixiang and Zhao, Yanyan and Qin, Bing , journal=

  64. [78]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.06996 , year=

    Self-Preference Bias in Rubric-Based Evaluation of Large Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.06996 , year=

    arXiv

  65. [79]

    2604.17283 , archivePrefix=

    Li, Shuyue Stella and Paranjape, Bhargavi and Oktar, Kerem and Ma, Zhongyao and Zhou, Gelin and Guan, Lin and Zhang, Na and Park, Sem and Chen, Lin and Yang, Diyi and Tsvetkov, Yulia and Celikyilmaz, Asli , year=. 2604.17283 , archivePrefix=

    arXiv

Pith tools

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