Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 20 references

MemoryCPT: An End-to-End Agent Memory Framework for Cost-Performance Trade-off

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MemoryCPT claims a trainable memory pipeline that raises answer quality per dollar.

desk verdict The pipeline idea is fresh and the writing is clear, but the cost accounting is wrong enough to flip the headline QPC comparison; needs arithmetic fixes before the empirical claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.04843 v1 pith:4REJEVEC submitted 2026-08-05 cs.IR

Songxin Lei , Kun Ouyang , Weilin Ruan , Yuqian Wu , Zhijiang Guo , Yushi Sun , Fugee Tsung This is my paper
classification cs.IR
keywords agentmemorylong-horizondialoguecost-performancetrade-offquery-awaresummarizationreciprocalrankfusionGRPOLoRAdistillationQualityperCost
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

This paper proposes MemoryCPT, an agent memory pipeline trained end to end rather than assembled from hand-crafted heuristics. It claims that splitting memory into an offline query-agnostic construction stage and an online query-aware retrieval-summarization stage lets a frozen QA model answer long-horizon dialogue questions more accurately while spending fewer tokens. To make the trade-off explicit, the paper introduces Quality per Cost (QPC), the ratio of token-level F1 to amortized inference cost, and reports that MemoryCPT improves QPC over five baselines on the LoCoMo and LongMemEval benchmarks.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the two-stage split of $f_{\text{mem}}$ into $f_{\text{QAD}}$ and $f_{\text{QAR}}$. QAD distills a modular teacher pipeline (segmenter, episode generator, episode merger, semantic extractor) into a LoRA adapter via supervised fine-tuning on reasoning traces and structured JSON, then merges it into the base model to build reusable episodic and semantic memory stores offline. QAR retrieves candidates by reciprocal rank fusion over dense and sparse retrievers, then uses a second LoRA adapter trained with GRPO to generate a query-conditioned summary under the reward $\alpha\,\mathrm{F1}(\hat{y}, y^*) + (1-\alpha)(1-\tilde{C}(q,m_q))$, where $\tilde{C}$ is a clipped, normalized token-cost proxy. Quality per Cost, defined as $\mathrm{QPC} = \mathrm{F1}/C_{\text{amortized}}$, is the evaluation identity that converts both stages into a single number.

What would settle it

Recompute QPC after adding the measured cost of training LoRA-A and LoRA-B, divided by the number of test queries, to $C_{\text{amortized}}$ on LoCoMo. If the corrected QPC falls below Memory-R1's 0.098 or below the BudgetMem value, the central cost-performance claim fails under that accounting.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that cost and answer quality do not have to be traded off at the system level: a memory pipeline can be trained to retain answer-critical evidence while suppressing redundant tokens. On LoCoMo with a Qwen2.5-7B memory model, MemoryCPT reports F1 0.479 at Cost 4.31 (USD $\times 10^4$) against BudgetMem's F1 0.373 at Cost 24.11, lifting QPC from 0.015 to 0.111, and it reports a similar pattern on LongMemEval. The same advantage holds with a Llama-3.2-3B base. Ablations attribute the gain to both stages: removing QAD lowers F1, while removing QAR or the fine summarizer raises cost several-fold, so the full pipeline is what lands simultaneously at high F1 and low cost.

Load-bearing premise

The cost advantage assumes adapter training costs should not be charged to the queries being answered; if the LoRA-A and LoRA-B training runs are amortized over the 314 test questions, the reported QPC gap narrows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Memory construction can be amortized: one offline pass builds a store that serves many queries, so per-query cost approaches the online lower bound as interactions accumulate.
  • Query-aware compression, not just retrieval, is the main cost lever: removing QAR raises LoCoMo cost from 4.31 to 11.10 while lowering F1.
  • A frozen downstream QA model plus a small trained summarizer can deliver near-best accuracy at a fraction of the inference cost of heuristic pipelines.
  • Agent memory evaluation should report quality per cost alongside raw accuracy, because comparable F1 scores across systems hide large differences in token spending.
  • The reward coefficient $\alpha=0.8$ sits near the Pareto frontier: extreme quality-only or cost-only rewards both degrade the F1-per-dollar result.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: if the LoRA-A and LoRA-B training runs were amortized into the cost denominator, the reported QPC advantage would shrink; the paper counts only offline memory construction cost, not adapter training cost.
  • Editorial inference: the same offline-store/online-compressor split is a transferable recipe for other retrieval-heavy settings, such as document or email memory, where a reusable index can be built once and a small policy learned to summarize under a token budget.
  • Editorial inference: replacing token-level F1 in the reward with a judge-based or semantically sensitive quality signal would test whether the cost savings persist when correctness is judged by meaning rather than lexical overlap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MemoryCPT, an end-to-end trainable memory framework for long-horizon LLM agents, consisting of two stages: Query-agnostic Distillation (QAD), which distills a modular memory-construction pipeline into a compact model via reasoning-trace SFT, and Query-aware Retrieval and Summarization (QAR), which uses RRF-based retrieval plus a GRPO-trained LoRA summarizer with a cost-aware reward. The paper introduces Quality per Cost (QPC) as an evaluation metric and reports experiments on LoCoMo and LongMemEval showing improved cost-performance trade-offs over baselines such as Memory-R1, BudgetMem, LightMem, and MemoryOS. The appendix provides detailed token and cost breakdowns, hyperparameters, and per-category results.

Significance. If the empirical claims survive correction, MemoryCPT is a meaningful step toward trainable memory pipelines that explicitly optimize the quality-cost trade-off rather than accuracy alone. The two-stage design (offline distillation of memory construction, online query-conditioned summarization) is well motivated, and the QPC metric plus the detailed cost accounting in the appendix are useful contributions to the evaluation methodology. The paper also provides unusually explicit implementation details (token counts, pricing tables, hyperparameters, per-category breakdowns), which is a strength for reproducibility. However, the current numerical inconsistencies between narrative text and tables, the unresolved cost-accounting ambiguity for multiple memory stores, and the test-set-based hyperparameter selection prevent the central claim from being accepted as stated.

major comments (5)
  1. [Cost and Quality per Cost / Appendix 'Amortized Cost Model'] The reported LoCoMo cost of 4.31 (in USD×10^4 units) is not reproducible from the stated components. Eq. (3) with C_QAD=0.02542, C_online=3.462e-4, and n=314 gives 3.462e-4 + 0.02542/314 = 4.272e-4, not 4.31e-4; the value 4.31e-4 corresponds to n≈300. More seriously, the test split uses two conversations (conv-49 and conv-50) while Table 7 defines C_QAD as the offline cost per complete memory store. If each conversation requires its own store, the amortized offline term is 2×0.02542/314 = 1.62e-4, yielding Cost≈5.08 and QPC = 0.479/5.08 ≈ 0.094, which is below Memory-R1's LoCoMo QPC of 0.098 in Table 2. The headline advantage over Memory-R1 therefore depends on an unstated store-per-conversation assumption and on the choice of n. Please clarify the number of memory stores for the LoCoMo test set and recompute all costs and QPC values consistently.
  2. [Model Comparison (Table 2)] The text accompanying Table 2 states that MemoryCPT reduces Cost from 24.11 to 3.46 and achieves QPC 0.138, but the table reports Cost 4.31 and QPC 0.111 for the same configuration. The claims of '7 times lower inference cost' and 'over 9 times higher QPC' are computed from the narrative values (3.46 and 0.138), not from the table values (4.31 and 0.111, which give 5.6× lower cost and 7.4× higher QPC). These discrepancies appear throughout the results section and must be resolved; the reported magnitudes of the claimed advantage are not the same in the text and the tables.
  3. [Ablation Study (Table 3)] The QAD ablation paragraph claims that removing QAD decreases QPC from 0.138 to 0.131, implying QAD improves cost-performance. Table 3 shows the opposite: the w/o QAD row has LoCoMo QPC 0.131, while the full MemoryCPT row has QPC 0.111, so removing QAD increases QPC. The text's conclusion that 'QAD acts as a quality amplifier' is thus not supported by the reported table; it relies on the non-table QPC value 0.138. This is a load-bearing contradiction for the component-level claim and should be corrected and discussed.
  4. [Cost-Performance Trade-off Analytics / Retrieval Depth Analytics (Figs. 2 and 3)] The default hyperparameters α=0.8 and retrieval depth 20/50 appear to be selected by sweeping on the test sets: Fig. 2 reports that QPC(QA) is maximized at α=0.8 on the LoCoMo and LongMemEval test benchmarks, and Fig. 3 reports the same for the retrieval depth. Because the main results in Tables 2 and 3 use these defaults, the reported performance is partly a consequence of test-set fitting. The paper should move hyperparameter selection to a validation split, or explicitly report the selection procedure on training/validation data and quantify how the main conclusions change under this protocol.
  5. [Eq. (3) and Appendix 'Offline Distillation Usage Details'] The cost model amortizes C_QAD, the offline memory construction cost, but does not include the cost of training LoRA-A and LoRA-B, which are retrained for each dataset (Table 4 in the appendix; QAD training sets of 1185 and 4766 examples for LoCoMo and LongMemEval). The title and abstract frame the contribution as a cost-performance trade-off, so excluding training costs should be explicitly justified and, ideally, quantified (e.g., GPU-hours or USD and the amortized contribution per query). Without this, the QPC comparisons are not a complete cost accounting, and the '7× lower cost' narrative is overstated relative to total system cost.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Model Comparison] The phrase 'an QPC of 0.138' should read 'a QPC of 0.138'.
  2. [Sub-Category Performance on LongMemEval] The text uses 'QID semantic-abstraction stage' where the rest of the paper uses QAD (Query-agnostic Distillation); this acronym is undefined and should be fixed.
  3. [Table 2 and Table 3 captions] The cost unit 'USD×104' should be typeset as 'USD×10^4' for clarity.
  4. [Figures 2 and 3] The quantitative statements in the text (e.g., QPC(QA) peaks of 59.5 and 56.5; retrieval depth knee recovering 96% of peak F1 at 42–44% of candidate cost) refer to figures that are not present in the provided manuscript text; please ensure the figures are included and legible in the final version.
  5. [Reproducibility] All tables report a single run; given the marginal QPC difference between MemoryCPT (0.111) and Memory-R1 (0.098) on LoCoMo, bootstrap confidence intervals or multiple-seed runs would strengthen the ranking claims.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Main 'best' configuration is selected on the test sets via alpha and retrieval-depth sweeps, so the headline QPC advantage is partly fitted to the evaluation data; the paper's own cost accounting is also internally inconsistent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Experiments > Cost-Performance Trade-off Analytics (Fig. 2) and Implementation Details]
    "We vary α∈{0.2,0.4,0.6,0.8,1.0} and retrain LoRA-B on both datasets. Fig. 2 ... QPC(QA) is maximized at α=0.8 on both LoCoMo (59.5) and LongMemEval (56.5), forming a clear peak over neighboring settings. ... α=0.8 lies on the upper-left of the frontier, achieving near-best F1 at low cost, which is why we adopt it as the default trade-off in all main experiments."

    The main comparison (Table 2) reports MemoryCPT with the default α=0.8. That default was picked by evaluating QPC(QA)—the same quality-per-cost objective family—on the very LoCoMo and LongMemEval test sets whose F1/Cost/QPC then appear in the main table. The headline 'best trade-off' is therefore a post hoc selection on the evaluation data, not an out-of-sample prediction; the reported advantage over baselines is partly forced by choosing the reward weight that maximizes the reported metric on those test sets.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Experiments > Retrieval Depth Analytics (Fig. 3) and Implementation Details]
    "Quality rises quickly at small k and shows a knee around 8/20, which already recovers about 96% of the peak F1 at only 42–44% of the candidate cost. Quality then peaks at 20/50 (F1 0.478/Judge 0.755 on LoCoMo, F1 0.485/Judge 0.533 on LongMemEval). Beyond this point, enlarging k to 32/80 slightly degrades both metrics on both datasets ... We therefore adopt 20/50 as the default depth: it attains the best quality just before the declining regime."

    The main results (Tables 2, 3, 11, 12) use top-20 episodic / top-50 semantic retrieval because that depth maximizes F1 and Judge on the test sets. The default retrieval depth is thus selected on the dependent variable, and the resulting F1/Judge gains are the same numbers used for selection. The main-table quality advantage is therefore partly an artifact of tuning k to the evaluation split rather than a prediction of an independent setting.

full rationale

MemoryCPT's pipeline itself is not self-referential: QAD distills reasoning traces from an externally cited teacher pipeline (Ma et al. 2026), QAR states a contextual-bandit objective with GRPO from first principles, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present. The circular component is in the evaluation protocol: the headline configuration is chosen by sweeping α and retrieval depth on the same LoCoMo and LongMemEval test splits that are then used for the main comparison. Because QPC(QA) at α=0.8 and F1/Judge at k=20/50 are the selection criteria, reporting those numbers as 'MemoryCPT' is partly reporting the result of tuning to the test set, not an independent prediction. Separately, the appendix's amortization arithmetic is not reproducible: Eq. 20 with n=314 gives 3.462e-4 + 0.02542/314 = 4.272e-4, not the 4.31e-4 in Table 2, and the narrative cost 3.46 equals C_online alone; if the two LoCoMo test conversations require two memory stores, the corrected QPC falls below Memory-R1. That cost inconsistency is a load-bearing correctness risk rather than a circularity of the derivation, but it amplifies the selected-result concern. Score 6 reflects partial circularity from test-set hyperparameter selection, not full equivalence, because the framework's components and ablations still provide independent empirical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's quantitative claims rest on the reward coefficient and retrieval depth chosen on test sets, plus the assumed amortization and pricing. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced; QPC is an evaluation metric, not an entity.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha (reward coefficient) = 0.8
    Selected in the sensitivity analysis (Fig. 2) as the value maximizing QPC(QA) on the LoCoMo and LongMemEval test sets; it directly controls the cost-quality trade-off in the reward.
  • retrieval depth (episodic/semantic) = 20/50
    Chosen from a sweep (Fig. 3) as the knee where F1 peaks on the test sets; larger depths degrade quality and increase cost.
  • C_ref normalization token counts = 60 summary tokens, 8 answer tokens
    Hand-chosen reference used in Eq. 15 to map cost to [0,1]; the specific 60/8 values are not derived from data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Teacher traces from the modular pipeline (Ma et al. 2026) generated by deepseek-v3 are accurate enough to serve as distillation targets without filtering.
    QAD trains the student entirely on these traces; no quality check or error analysis is reported in the paper.
  • domain assumption Token-level F1 against the gold answer is a reliable proxy for answer quality in the GRPO reward.
    The reward (Eq. 16) uses F1 for dense feedback, but F1 can reward keyword overlap even when the answer is semantically wrong; the paper offers no analysis of reward-quality correlation.
  • domain assumption The fixed token price table (Table 5) and the amortization model over n query counts (Eq. 3) represent real deployment costs.
    Cost figures use OpenRouter list prices and assume a store serves 314 queries; the sensitivity to different pricing or query volumes is only partially explored in the appendix.
  • domain assumption Qwen3-14B with thinking disabled and a 6-word answer cap is an adequate frozen QA model for all compared memory systems.
    All methods share this QA model, but the 32-token response cap may truncate answers and affect F1 differently across methods.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MemoryCPT: An End-to-End Agent Memory Framework for Cost-Performance Trade-off." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4REJEVEC

@misc{pith2026260804843,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MemoryCPT: An End-to-End Agent Memory Framework for Cost-Performance Trade-off},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4REJEVEC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.04843}
}
read the original abstract

Long-horizon LLM agents require memory systems that recover useful evidence from large interaction histories without passing excessive context to downstream models. Existing memory pipelines often rely on hand-crafted heuristics and repeated LLM calls, which can introduce redundant context and high inference cost. We propose MemoryCPT, an end-to-end trainable agent memory pipeline that spans offline memory construction and online query-conditioned context generation. MemoryCPT consists of two stages: Query-agnostic Distillation (QAD), which distills a modular memory-construction pipeline into a compact model using explicit reasoning traces; and Query-aware Retrieval and Summarization (QAR), which combines reciprocal rank fusion (RRF) with a LoRA-based summarizer trained via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) under a cost-aware reward. We further introduce Quality per Cost (QPC) to quantify answer quality per unit inference cost. Experiments on LoCoMo and LongMemEval show that MemoryCPT improves the cost-performance trade-off over the evaluated baselines, while ablation and sensitivity analyses characterize the contributions of its components and the effects of key design choices.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.04843 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of MemoryCPT. The offline stage, Query-agnostic Distillation (QAD), distills a modular memory pipeline [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Retrieval Depth Analytics. than new evidence. We therefore adopt 20/50 as the default depth: it attains the best quality just before the declining regime, while keeping the candidate set compact enough for cost-efficient summarization. Related Work Existing work typically improves upstream context manage￾ment from three perspectives: (i) memory compression (Xu et al. 2026; Liu et al. 2026; Hu et al. 2026) by condens… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Cost-Performance Trade-off Analytics. this pattern: α = 1.0 sits at the high-cost end with little F1 gain, whereas aggressive compression collapses F1 at com￾parable cost. In contrast, α = 0.8 lies on the upper-left of the frontier, achieving near-best F1 at low cost, which is why we adopt it as the default trade-off in all main experiments. Retrieval Depth Analytics We study how the retrieval depth k in RRF-based r… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    M$^3$Exam: Benchmarking Multimodal Memory for Realistic User-Agent Interactions

    M3 Exam: Bench- marking Multimodal Memory for Realistic User-Agent In- teractions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.07402. Ji, S.; Li, Y.; and Hooi, B

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [4]

    Memory is Reconstructed, Not Retrieved: Graph Memory for LLM Agents

    Memory is Recon- structed, Not Retrieved: Graph Memory for LLM Agents. arXiv:2606.06036. Jiang, D.; Li, Y.; Wei, S.; Yang, J.; Kishore, A.; Zhao, A.; Kang,D.;Hu,X.;Chen,F.;Li,Q.;andLi,B.2026. Anatomy of Agentic Memory: Taxonomy and Empirical Analysis of Evaluation and System Limitations. arXiv:2602.19320. Kang, J.; Ji, M.; Zhao, Z.; and Bai, T

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [5]

    arXiv:2506.06326

    Memory OS of AI Agent. arXiv:2506.06326. Kim,M.;Baek,J.;Jeong,S.;andHwang,S.J.2026a. Mem- Refine: LLM-Guided Compression for Long-Term Agent Memory. arXiv:2606.13177. Kim,M.;Baek,J.;Jeong,S.;andHwang,S.J.2026b. Mem- Refine: LLM-Guided Compression for Long-Term Agent Memory. arXiv:2606.13177. Liu,J.;Su,Y.;Xia,P.;Han,S.;Zheng,Z.;Xie,C.;Ding,M.; and Yao, H

    arXiv

  4. [6]

    Liu,N.F.;Lin,K.;Hewitt,J.;Paranjape,A.;Bevilacqua,M.; Petroni, F.; and Liang, P

    SimpleMem: Efficient Lifelong Memory for LLM Agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.02553. Liu,N.F.;Lin,K.;Hewitt,J.;Paranjape,A.;Bevilacqua,M.; Petroni, F.; and Liang, P

    arXiv

  5. [9]

    Episodic-Semantic Memory Architecture for Long-Horizon Scientific Agents

    Episodic-Semantic Memory Architec- tureforLong-HorizonScientificAgents. arXiv:2605.17625. Nie,C.;Fu,C.;Feng,J.;andShan,C.2026. EvoEmbedding: Evolvable Representations for Long-Context Retrieval and Agentic Memory. arXiv:2606.21649. Qwen; :; Yang, A.; Yang, B.; Zhang, B.; Hui, B.; Zheng, B.; Yu, B.; Li, C.; Liu, D.; Huang, F.; Wei, H.; Lin, H.; Yang, J.; T...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  6. [11]

    arXiv:2402.03300

    DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Rea- soning in Open Language Models. arXiv:2402.03300. Shinn, N.; Cassano, F.; Berman, E.; Gopinath, A.; Narasimhan, K.; and Yao, S

    arXiv

  7. [12]

    arXiv:2303.11366

    Reflexion: Lan- guage Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning. arXiv:2303.11366. Stiennon, N.; Ouyang, L.; Wu, J.; Ziegler, D. M.; Lowe, R.; Voss, C.; Radford, A.; Amodei, D.; and Christiano, P

    arXiv

  8. [14]

    arXiv:2410.10813

    LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory. arXiv:2410.10813. Wu, Y.; Chen, W.; Huang, Z.; Chen, J.; Liu, Q.; Wang, K.; Zhou, X.; and Liang, Y. 2026a. Back to basics: Let conver- sational agents remember with just retrieval and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.11628. Wu,Y.;Deng,Z.;Chen,W.;Li,J.;Jiang,Y.;Chen,J.;Huang, Z...

    arXiv

Show all 20 references
  1. [15]

    arXiv:2604.27707

    Contextual Agentic Memory is a Memo, Not True Memory. arXiv:2604.27707. Xu, W.; Liang, Z.; Mei, K.; Gao, H.; Tan, J.; and Zhang, Y

    arXiv

  2. [16]

    Yang, A.; Yang, B.; Zhang, B.; Hui, B.; Zheng, B.; Yu, B.; Li, C.; Liu, D.; Huang, F.; Wei, H.; et al

    Memory- R1: Enhancing Large Language Model Agents to Manage and Utilize Memories via Reinforcement Learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.19828. Yang, A.; Yang, B.; Zhang, B.; Hui, B.; Zheng, B.; Yu, B.; Li, C.; Liu, D.; Huang, F.; Wei, H.; et al

    arXiv

  3. [17]

    Yu, Y.; Yao, L.; Xie, Y.; Tan, Q.; Feng, J.; Li, Y.; and Wu, L

    Qwen2.5 Technical Report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115. Yu, Y.; Yao, L.; Xie, Y.; Tan, Q.; Feng, J.; Li, Y.; and Wu, L

    arXiv

  4. [18]

    arXiv:2601.01885

    Agentic Memory: Learning Unified Long-Term and Short-Term Memory Management for Large Language Model Agents. arXiv:2601.01885. Zhang, H.; Yue, H.; Feng, T.; Long, Q.; Bao, J.; Jin, B.; Zhang, W.; Li, X.; You, J.; Qin, C.; and Wang, W

    arXiv

  5. [19]

    arXiv:2602.06025

    Learning Query-Aware Budget-Tier Routing for Runtime Agent Memory. arXiv:2602.06025. Zhong, W.; Guo, L.; Gao, Q.; Ye, H.; and Wang, Y

    arXiv

  6. [20]

    arXiv:2305.10250

    MemoryBank: Enhancing Large Language Models with Long-Term Memory. arXiv:2305.10250. Appendix Implementation Details and Hyperparameters This section provides complete implementation details, hy- perparameter configurations, prompt definitions, and evalu- ation environments to...

    2026 arXiv

  7. [2022]

    arXiv:2009.01325

    Learning to summarize from human feedback. arXiv:2009.01325. Wu,D.;Wang,H.;Yu,W.;Zhang,Y.;Chang,K.-W.;andYu, D

    2009 arXiv

  8. [2023]

    arXiv:2307.03172

    Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts. arXiv:2307.03172. Ma,W.;Nan,J.;Wu,W.;andChen,Y.2026. WhatDeserves Memory: Adaptive Memory Distillation for LLM Agents. arXiv:2508.03341. Maharana,A.;Lee,D.-H.;Tulyakov,S.;Bansal,M.;Barbieri, F.; and Fang, Y

    2026 arXiv

  9. [2024]

    arXiv:2402.17753

    Evaluating Very Long-Term Conver- sational Memory of LLM Agents. arXiv:2402.17753. Meta

    arXiv

  10. [2025]

    arXiv:2510.05381

    Context Length Alone Hurts LLM Performance Despite Perfect Retrieval. arXiv:2510.05381. Fang, J.; Deng, X.; Xu, H.; Jiang, Z.; Tang, Y.; Xu, Z.; Deng,S.;Yao,Y.;Wang,M.;Qiao,S.;Chen,H.;andZhang, N

  11. [2026]

    arXiv:2510.18866

    LightMem: Lightweight and Efficient Memory- Augmented Generation. arXiv:2510.18866. Griot,M.;Scotti,P.S.;andAbraham,T.M.2026. Compress- Distill: Reasoning Trace Compression for Efficient Knowl- edge Distillation. arXiv:2606.05988. Hu, Z.; Zhu, Q.; Zhao, R.; Liang, D.; Yan, H.;...

    2026 arXiv

  12. [2048]

    Hyperparameter Value Actor Base Model Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct + LoRA-A (baseA) Actor LoRA Learning Rate (lr)3×10 −5 GRPO Group Size (n)4 Total Training Epochs2(or30steps on LongMemEval) Global Train Batch Size48 PPO Mini-Batch Size12 Micro-Batch Size per GPU4 KL Loss Coefficient (...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.