Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 88 references

When Your Agent Opens the Chat App: Agent-Controlled Search over Raw Chat Logs Rivals Structured Memory

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 An agent-controlled lexical search over unmodified chat logs can outperform structured memory systems on conversational-memory benchmarks, without any LLM-based index construction.

desk verdict Real system, careful ablations, but the 'raw beats structure' conclusion is confounded by the agentic loop—reframe or rerun. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12888 v1 pith:WISO4F3K submitted 2026-08-13 cs.CL

Ruizhe Li , Licheng Zhang , Benfeng Xu , Mingxuan Du , Zheren Fu , Weidong Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords conversationalmemoryagenticretrievalBM25rawchatlogsstructuredReciprocalRankFusionAgentBenchLongMemEval
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

ReFind asks how much of the benefit credited to structured agent memory comes from pre-built summaries, embeddings, trees, or knowledge graphs, and how much simply from competent retrieval over the original conversation history. Its answer is to build no semantic structure at all: leave the chat log unmodified, index it lexically at turn granularity, and let a language-model agent run iterative keyword searches with four chat-aware controls—retrieving nearby turns, boosting sessions with multiple hits, restricting by date, and skipping sessions already inspected. Across six conversational-memory tasks totaling about 2,800 questions, this reaches a mean accuracy of 58.2, above the strongest compared structured system, HippoRAG 2, at 53.2 on a matched GPT-4o-mini backbone, with no LLM-based index construction. The result matters because it suggests that much of the value attributed to elaborate memory representations is recoverable by preserving raw records and giving the agent controllable search.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is an agent-controlled search interface over an unmodified chat archive: a BM25 inverted index built at turn granularity with no LLM-generated representation, a ReAct-style controller that issues up to four parameterized keyword searches, saves evidence after each round, and conditions its next query on returned observations, and four chat-native controls—Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF) combining turn-level and session-level scores, expansion to ±2 neighboring turns around a hit, timestamp-range filtering, and session deduplication that excludes sessions already returned. A separate reasoning stage consumes the saved notes, grouped and chronologically ordered, and generates the answer from that evidence-only view.

What would settle it

If a direct reproduction of the six MemoryAgentBench baselines—HippoRAG 2, GraphRAG, RAPTOR, Mem0, Zep, Self-RAG, MemGPT, MIRIX, and BM25-RAG—under the paper's exact harness, judge prompts, and decoding settings with GPT-4o-mini produced a mean accuracy at or above ReFind's 58.2, or if rerunning LongMemEval-S/M baselines locally narrowed the 93.2/89.3 margin to within a few points, the headline ranking would collapse.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for precise, evidence-grounded questions over chat archives, preserving raw records and exposing their conversational structure to an adaptive agent outperforms first transforming them into a memory representation. Concretely, ReFind reaches 93.2±3.3 on LongMemEval-S and 89.3±6.0 on LongMemEval-M with a GPT-5-mini controller, and on the six MemoryAgentBench tasks its 58.2 mean accuracy exceeds every compared baseline, including HippoRAG 2's 53.2. The paper further argues, through three matched control families, that the gain comes from the interaction between multi-round agent control and a session-, context-, time-, and redundancy-aware lexical interface, not from a larger model, semantic embeddings, or a single strong first query.

Load-bearing premise

Most comparison numbers are reused from prior papers rather than measured in this harness, so the reported lead depends on those original evaluations being directly comparable to the local runs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The paper shows that elaborate pre-built memory structures are not necessary for precise, evidence-grounded conversational-memory questions; raw records plus adaptive lexical search can outperform them on this task suite.
  • Because no LLM-based index is built, an archive becomes searchable as soon as messages arrive, and computation happens only at question time, averaging about 2.5 searches and 5 LLM calls per question.
  • Each of the four chat-native controls matters: removing any one costs 1 to 9 points on LongMemEval, with context expansion the clearest contribution on the shorter subset and session deduplication the largest on the longer subset.
  • The advantage persists under a stronger controller: on LongMemEval-S/M with GPT-5-mini, ReFind outperforms every compared structured system, and matched backend ablations show dense or hybrid retrieval do not beat lexical BM25, indicating the agent supplies semantic adaptation through reformulation.
  • A modular design principle follows: begin with faithful storage and a controllable search interface, then add derived structures only for workloads that demand a separate latency or abstraction layer.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension beyond this paper: build a paraphrase-heavy variant of these benchmarks where questions share few surface terms with the evidence; ReFind's margin should narrow because the mechanism depends on discriminative lexical forms.
  • An implicit design consequence: production systems could layer a small structured index over ReFind-style raw search for latency-sensitive or abstractive workloads, since the paper's contribution is access intelligence, not a claim that no structure is ever useful.
  • The same session-aware controls should transfer to other timestamped, threaded corpora, such as email archives mapped to sessions by thread and sender, where the refinding studies cited in the paper already observed similar orienteering behavior.
  • Because the LongMemEval-M subset contains only 15 questions, fine-grained per-control rankings there are not stable; a larger question sample would settle the per-component contributions.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ReFind, an agent-controlled retrieval interface that performs iterative BM25 keyword search directly over unmodified, session-structured chat logs, with no offline LLM-based index construction. The retrieval stage uses a ReAct-style controller with a search tool, note-taking, and four chat-native controls: session-aware rank fusion via RRF, local context expansion, temporal filtering, and seen-session deduplication; a separate reasoning stage answers from the collected evidence. The authors report mean accuracy 58.2 across six MemoryAgentBench tasks with GPT-4o-mini, above HippoRAG 2 (53.2), and 93.2/89.3 on LongMemEval-S/M with GPT-5-mini. Controlled ablations compare the full method with a generic agentic BM25 control, a one-search control, component removals, and dense/hybrid backends. The paper concludes that preserving raw records and exposing their conversational structure to an adaptive agent outperforms transforming them into a structured memory representation.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a valuable negative result for the agent-memory literature: much of the benefit attributed to pre-built summaries, embeddings, trees, and knowledge graphs may be recoverable with a competent retrieval controller over the raw archive. The paper has genuine strengths: the ablation design is unusually disciplined, with a matched generic-agentic control, a one-search control, component removals, and backend swaps that separate iteration, chat-native controls, and lexical retrieval; hyperparameters such as BM25 k1, b, RRF k, and top-K are stated and are standard defaults rather than test-set-tuned values; repeated runs on the LongMemEval subsets quantify execution variability; and the example trajectory in Appendix G makes the mechanism auditable. The main limitation is comparability of baselines, since the headline comparisons reuse numbers from prior papers and do not hold the agentic controller fixed across the raw-versus-structured contrast.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5, Table 4; §3 System Architecture] The paper's central attribution claim—that preserving raw records outperforms first transforming them into a memory representation—is not tested with the retrieval controller held fixed. On LongMemEval-M, the one-search ReFind control scores 68.9, essentially tied with HippoRAG 2's 66.7 in Table 3, while the full four-iteration ReFind reaches 89.3; the 22.6-point gap over HippoRAG 2 is therefore mostly attributable to the multi-round agent loop rather than to the raw lexical representation itself. Because the structured baselines in Tables 2 and 3 appear in their published non-agentic configurations while ReFind uses a four-iteration ReAct controller with note-taking, context expansion, temporal filtering, and deduplication, the raw-versus-structure contrast is confounded with the presence of an adaptive retrieval controller. I request a matched-controller experiment, such as running HippoRAG 2 or GraphRAG behind the same four-iteration ReAct loop over their indices with the same tool-call budget, or an explicit re-scoping of the conclusion to agent-controlled search over raw logs versus non-agentic structured memory.
  2. [§4 Baselines, Tables 2 and 3; Appendix C] The headline comparisons reuse baseline numbers from Hu et al. (2025) for MemoryAgentBench and from STITCH (Yang et al., 2026) for LongMemEval, with only GAM re-evaluated locally, and Appendix C acknowledges that the systems were not all rerun with a matched controller or tool-call budget. Because the MemoryAgentBench margin is small (58.2 vs. 53.2, and 51.3 vs. 50.7 on LME) and the LongMemEval baselines come from a different evaluation harness, unmeasured differences in judge prompts, decoding settings, or incremental-turn formatting could change the ordering. I ask the authors to reproduce at least the strongest competitor in each table under their local harness and protocol, or to report per-question agreement between the reused and locally evaluated settings so that the magnitude of the comparison can be verified.
  3. [Table 4; Appendix C, Repeated Component Ablations] The LongMemEval-M subset contains only 15 questions, so a single changed judgment moves accuracy by 6.7 points, and the five-run full-method mean on M is 89.3 ± 6.0 with run-level values 80.0–93.3. The component-ablation deltas on M (e.g., −9.3 for session deduplication, −4.9 for context window) fall within this run-to-run dispersion, and the appendix itself cautions that the M ordering requires caution; the main text nevertheless presents these deltas as evidence for the individual contribution of each control. I request paired or hypothesis-test-based reporting for the M subset, or an explicit main-text caveat that the M-level component ordering is descriptive and not statistically distinguished from noise.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Title and Abstract] The full-text title on page 1 contains a rendering artifact, 'When Y our Agent Opens the Chat App,' which should be corrected to match the abstract title.
  2. [Appendix A] The appendix reproduces the ReFind prompts and the LongMemEval judge prompt, but the MABench LME judge protocol is described only as 'task-specific templates from the MABench codebase'; including those templates or linking them explicitly would make the evaluation fully reproducible.
  3. [Appendix D, Table 11] Resource-use reporting would be more useful for practical claims if monetary cost per question were included, since the paper emphasizes that ReFind avoids offline index construction but does not report API cost for the online loop.
  4. [§5, Table 4] The table's note that deltas are 'descriptive, not paired' is helpful, but the main-text sentence 'the resulting evidence chain attributes the gain to the interaction between multi-round control and a conversationally structured lexical interface' should be softened to reflect that the one-search and component comparisons are unpaired means over different run counts.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: the results are measured benchmark outcomes with controlled ablations, and the only self-citation (A-RAG) appears in related work and does not support the headline claim.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: a specific interface attains measured accuracies on given benchmarks. No predicted quantity is defined in terms of an input quantity by construction. BM25 parameters (k1=1.2, b=0.75), RRF smoothing (k=60), top-K (5), context window (±2), and the four-iteration budget are fixed implementation settings, not fitted to test labels. The controlled comparisons in Table 4—Generic Agentic BM25, one-search, component removals, and backend variants—are mechanism ablations that isolate the agent loop, chat-native controls, and lexical backend; they do not rename fitted parameters as predictions. The only overlap-citing reference is A-RAG (Du et al., 2026), used in Related Work to position the contribution as 'for general document retrieval rather than conversational memory'; it is not invoked as evidence for ReFind's accuracy, as a uniqueness theorem, or as a source of the systems' design equations. Reused baselines from Hu et al. (2025) and STITCH (Yang et al., 2026) are external-comparability choices, transparently disclosed in Appendix C, which explicitly notes that 'the systems were not all rerun with a matched controller or tool-call budget.' That is a validity limitation on the attribution claim, not a circular derivation: ReFind's own scores are measured independently of those baseline numbers. The paper also flags small-sample cautions (e.g., M contains only 15 questions) and the absence of a human-agreement study for the automatic judge; these are honest scope statements, not circular moves. No self-definitional step, fitted-input-called-prediction step, or load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to test labels; the listed hyperparameters are hand-chosen defaults with no sensitivity analysis. No new physical or conceptual entities are postulated. The main assumptions are standard IR validity, LLM competence, benchmark validity, baseline parity, and judge validity.

free parameters (6)
  • BM25 k1 = 1.2
    Term-frequency saturation parameter; standard default, not tuned on test sets.
  • BM25 b = 0.75
    Length normalization parameter; standard default, not tuned on test sets.
  • RRF smoothing constant k = 60
    Standard RRF constant; hand-chosen; no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • Top-K per search = 5
    Result budget per search; hand-chosen default; no sensitivity analysis reported.
  • Context window w = +/-2 turns
    Number of neighboring turns returned around a hit; hand-chosen; its removal causes the largest S-subset ablation drop.
  • Max ReAct iterations = 4
    Online computation budget; hand-chosen; the one-search control shows the multi-round loop contributes substantially.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math BM25 and Reciprocal Rank Fusion are valid retrieval methods for this task without additional training.
    The method section invokes standard IR definitions (Robertson and Zaragoza 2009; Cormack et al. 2009).
  • domain assumption The LLM agent can formulate effective keyword queries and choose correct tool parameters.
    The whole method depends on GPT-4o-mini and GPT-5-mini performing the ReAct loop competently, as described in Section 3.1.
  • domain assumption The evaluation harnesses (MemoryAgentBench and the STITCH protocol on LongMemEval-S/M) faithfully measure the claimed capability.
    The task suite in Section 4 defines what is being claimed; if these benchmarks are not good proxies, the conclusion narrows.
  • domain assumption Baseline numbers reused from Hu et al. (2025) and Yang et al. (2026) are comparable to locally run evaluations.
    Tables 2 and 3 plus Appendix C state values are reused; the headline margins depend on evaluation parity.
  • domain assumption LLM-as-judge verdicts (GPT-4o and GPT-4.1-mini) approximate human correctness.
    LME and LongMemEval use judge models; Appendix C admits no human-agreement study was conducted.
  • domain assumption The chat-native controls (session, time, context, dedup) capture the relevant structure of conversational archives.
    Motivated by refinding studies in Section 2; the ablations support, but do not prove, that these are the right axes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When Your Agent Opens the Chat App: Agent-Controlled Search over Raw Chat Logs Rivals Structured Memory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WISO4F3K

@misc{pith2026260812888,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When Your Agent Opens the Chat App: Agent-Controlled Search over Raw Chat Logs Rivals Structured Memory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WISO4F3K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12888}
}
read the original abstract

Agent-memory systems increasingly buy retrieval quality with structure, transforming raw conversation histories into summaries, embeddings, trees, or knowledge graphs before any question is asked. We ask how much of that benefit comes from the structure itself, rather than from competent retrieval over the raw history. We present ReFind, an agent-controlled search interface that builds no semantic structure at all: it leaves the conversation archive unmodified, indexes it lexically at turn granularity, and combines a generic iterative keyword-search loop with four chat-native controls grounded in empirical refinding work: session-aware rank fusion, local context expansion, temporal narrowing, and skipping already-inspected sessions. A separate reasoning stage answers from the collected evidence. Across a broad suite of conversational-memory tasks (single- and multi-hop QA, event ordering, and fact consolidation), roughly 2,800 questions on precise-retrieval and fact-tracking capabilities evaluated under the incremental multi-turn setting of MemoryAgentBench, ReFind attains the highest mean accuracy (58.2) of any system compared, above the strongest graph- and tree-based memory systems (HippoRAG 2, 53.2), all under a GPT-4o-mini backbone matched to every reused baseline. Controlled comparisons to single-shot BM25, a matched generic-agentic BM25 control, component removals, and agentic dense/hybrid variants separately support the roles of agent control, chat-native controls, and lexical retrieval. On LongMemEval-S/M, the same interface reaches 93.2 +/- 3.3 and 89.3 +/- 6.0 with GPT-5-mini. The results indicate that for precise, evidence-grounded questions over chat archives, much of the benefit credited to elaborate memory structures is recoverable by giving an agent controllable search over the unmodified record, with no LLM-based index construction at all.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022 , url=

    Yao, Shunyu and Zhao, Jeffrey and Yu, Dian and Du, Nan and Shafran, Izhak and Narasimhan, Karthik and Cao, Yuan , journal=. 2022 , url=

    2022

  2. [2]

    2023 , url=

    Wang, Guanzhi and Xie, Yuqi and Jiang, Yunfan and Mandlekar, Ajay and Xiao, Chaowei and Zhu, Yuke and Fan, Linxi and Anandkumar, Anima , journal=. 2023 , url=

    2023

  3. [3]

    2023 , url=

    Shinn, Noah and Cassano, Federico and Berman, Edward and Gopinath, Ashwin and Narasimhan, Karthik and Yao, Shunyu , journal=. 2023 , url=

    2023

  4. [4]

    and Burger, Doug and Wang, Chi , journal=

    Wu, Qingyun and Bansal, Gagan and Zhang, Jieyu and Wu, Yiran and Li, Beibin and Zhu, Erkang and Jiang, Li and Zhang, Xiaoyun and Zhang, Shaokun and Liu, Jiale and Awadallah, Ahmed Hassan and White, Ryen W. and Burger, Doug and Wang, Chi , journal=. 2023 , url=

    2023

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11432 , year=

    A Survey on Large Language Model based Autonomous Agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11432 , year=

    arXiv

  6. [7]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Attention is All You Need , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=. 2017 , url=

    2017

  7. [8]

    2025 , url=

    Chhikara, Prateek and Khant, Dev and Aryan, Saket and Singh, Taranjeet and Yadav, Deshraj , journal=. 2025 , url=

    2025

  8. [9]

    2023 , url=

    Zhong, Wanjun and Guo, Lianghong and Gao, Qiqi and Ye, He and Wang, Yanlin , journal=. 2023 , url=

    2023

Show all 88 references
  1. [10]

    2023 , url=

    Lu, Junru and An, Siyu and Lin, Mingbao and Pergola, Gabriele and He, Yulan and Yin, Di and Sun, Xing and Wu, Yunsheng , journal=. 2023 , url=

    2023

  2. [13]

    2025 , url=

    Rasmussen, Preston and Paliychuk, Pavlo and Beauvais, Travis and Ryan, Jack and Chalef, Daniel , journal=. 2025 , url=

    2025

  3. [16]

    , journal=

    Sarthi, Parth and Abdullah, Salman and Tuli, Aditi and Khanna, Shubh and Goldie, Anna and Manning, Christopher D. , journal=. 2024 , url=

    2024

  4. [17]

    2025 , url=

    Xu, Wujiang and Liang, Zujie and Mei, Kai and Gao, Hang and Tan, Juntao and Zhang, Yongfeng , journal=. 2025 , url=

    2025

  5. [19]

    From Local to Global: A

    Edge, Darren and Trinh, Ha and Cheng, Newman and Bradley, Joshua and Chao, Alex and Mody, Apurva and Truitt, Steven and Metropolitansky, Dasha and Ness, Robert Osazuwa and Larson, Jonathan , journal=. From Local to Global: A. 2024 , url=

    2024

  6. [20]

    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=. 2023 , url=

    2023

  7. [22]

    2023 , url=

    Asai, Akari and Wu, Zeqiu and Wang, Yizhong and Sil, Avirup and Hajishirzi, Hannaneh , journal=. 2023 , url=

    2023

  8. [23]

    2024 , url=

    Wu, Di and Wang, Hongwei and Yu, Wenhao and Zhang, Yuwei and Chang, Kai-Wei and Yu, Dong , journal=. 2024 , url=

    2024

  9. [24]

    Evaluating Memory in

    Hu, Yuanzhe and Wang, Yu and McAuley, Julian , journal=. Evaluating Memory in. 2025 , url=

    2025

  10. [25]

    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 , journal=. Evaluating Very Long-Term Conversational Memory of. 2024 , url=

    2024

  11. [28]

    2024 , url=

    Qian, Hongjin and Liu, Zheng and Zhang, Peitian and Mao, Kelong and Lian, Defu and Dou, Zhicheng and Huang, Tiejun , journal=. 2024 , url=

    2024

  12. [29]

    2025 , url=

    Wang, Yu and Chen, Xi , journal=. 2025 , url=

    2025

  13. [31]

    Proceedings of the 17th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages=

    Passage-Level Evidence in Document Retrieval , author=. Proceedings of the 17th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , pages=. 1994 , doi=

    1994

  14. [32]

    Reciprocal Rank Fusion Outperforms

    Cormack, Gordon V and Clarke, Charles L A and Buettcher, Stefan , booktitle=. Reciprocal Rank Fusion Outperforms. 2009 , doi=

    2009

  15. [33]

    The Probabilistic Relevance Framework:

    Robertson, Stephen and Zaragoza, Hugo , journal=. The Probabilistic Relevance Framework:. 2009 , doi=

    2009

  16. [34]

    Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume=

    Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts , author=. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics , volume=. 2024 , doi=

    2024

  17. [35]

    2024 , url=

    Hsieh, Cheng-Ping and Sun, Simeng and Kriman, Samuel and Acharya, Shantanu and Rekesh, Dima and Jia, Fei and Zhang, Yang and Ginsburg, Boris , journal=. 2024 , url=

    2024

  18. [36]

    In-Context Learning with Long-Context Models: An In-Depth Exploration , author=. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=. 2025 , add...

    2025 doi

  19. [37]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Towards Deep Conversational Recommendations , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=. 2018 , url=

    2018

  20. [38]

    2024 , publisher=

    Zhang, Xinrong and Chen, Yingfa and Hu, Shengding and Xu, Zihang and Chen, Junhao and Hao, Moo Khai and Han, Xu and Thai, Zhen Leng and Wang, Shuo and Liu, Zhiyuan and Sun, Maosong , booktitle=. 2024 , publisher=

    2024

  21. [39]

    2024 , url=

    Xu, Zhe and Ye, Jiasheng and Liu, Xiaoran and Liu, Xiangyang and Sun, Tianxiang and Liu, Zhigeng and Guo, Qipeng and Li, Linlin and Liu, Qun and Huang, Xuanjing and Qiu, Xipeng , journal=. 2024 , url=

    2024

  22. [40]

    Science , volume=

    Working Memory , author=. Science , volume=. 1992 , doi=

    1992

  23. [41]

    American Psychologist , volume=

    The Seven Sins of Memory: Insights from Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience , author=. American Psychologist , volume=. 1999 , doi=

    1999

  24. [42]

    Analysis , volume=

    The Extended Mind , author=. Analysis , volume=. 1998 , doi=

    1998

  25. [43]

    Trends in Cognitive Sciences , volume=

    Cognitive Offloading , author=. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , volume=. 2016 , doi=

    2016

  26. [44]

    Science , volume=

    Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips , author=. Science , volume=. 2011 , doi=

    2011

  27. [45]

    2007 , url=

    Keeping Found Things Found: The Study and Practice of Personal Information Management , author=. 2007 , url=

    2007

  28. [46]

    Online Review , volume=

    The Design of Browsing and Berrypicking Techniques for the Online Search Interface , author=. Online Review , volume=. 1989 , doi=

    1989

  29. [47]

    arXiv preprint cs/0310011 , year=

    Re-Finding Found Things: An Exploratory Study of How Users Re-Find Information , author=. arXiv preprint cs/0310011 , year=

    arXiv

  30. [48]

    Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    The Perfect Search Engine Is Not Enough: A Study of Orienteering Behavior in Directed Search , author=. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=. 2004 , doi=

    2004

  31. [49]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=

    The Reappropriation of Instant Messaging: Texting Ourselves, Message Dumping, and Revisiting Conversations , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction , volume=. 2022 , doi=

    2022

  32. [50]

    Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=

    Am I Wasting My Time Organizing Email? A Study of Email Refinding , author=. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , pages=. 2011 , doi=

    2011

  33. [51]

    Advances in Information Retrieval , pages=

    What Makes Re-Finding Information Difficult? A Study of Email Re-Finding , author=. Advances in Information Retrieval , pages=. 2011 , doi=

    2011

  34. [52]

    Information Processing & Management , volume=

    Search History Support for Finding and Using Information: User Interface Design Recommendations from a User Study , author=. Information Processing & Management , volume=. 2007 , doi=

    2007

  35. [53]

    Psychological Review , volume=

    Information Foraging , author=. Psychological Review , volume=. 1999 , doi=

    1999

  36. [54]

    Communications of the

    Exploratory Search: From Finding to Understanding , author=. Communications of the. 2006 , doi=

    2006

  37. [55]

    2004 , url=

    Lin, Chin-Yew , booktitle=. 2004 , url=

    2004

  38. [56]

    2026 , doi=

    Du, Mingxuan and Xu, Benfeng and Zhu, Chiwei and Wang, Shaohan and Wang, Pengyu and Wang, Xiaorui and Mao, Zhendong , journal=. 2026 , doi=

    2026

  39. [57]

    Self-RAG : Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection

    Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-RAG : Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.11511, 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.11511

    2023 arXiv

  40. [58]

    Passage-level evidence in document retrieval

    James P Callan. Passage-level evidence in document retrieval. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 302--310, 1994. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-2099-5_31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2099-5_31

    1994 doi

  41. [59]

    The reappropriation of instant messaging: Texting ourselves, message dumping, and revisiting conversations

    Claire Wei Cheng and Leila Aflatoony. The reappropriation of instant messaging: Texting ourselves, message dumping, and revisiting conversations. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 6 0 (MHCI): 0 1--23, 2022. doi:10.1145/3546722. https://doi.org/10.1145/3546722

    2022 doi

  42. [60]

    Mem0 : Building production-ready AI agents with scalable long-term memory

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

    2025 arXiv

  43. [61]

    The extended mind

    Andy Clark and David Chalmers. The extended mind. Analysis, 58 0 (1): 0 7--19, 1998. doi:10.1093/analys/58.1.7. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7

    1998 doi

  44. [62]

    Reciprocal rank fusion outperforms Condorcet and individual rank learning methods

    Gordon V Cormack, Charles L A Clarke, and Stefan Buettcher. Reciprocal rank fusion outperforms Condorcet and individual rank learning methods. In Proceedings of the 32nd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pages 758--759, 20...

    2009

  45. [63]

    A-RAG : Scaling agentic retrieval-augmented generation via hierarchical retrieval interfaces

    Mingxuan Du, Benfeng Xu, Chiwei Zhu, Shaohan Wang, Pengyu Wang, Xiaorui Wang, and Zhendong Mao. A-RAG : Scaling agentic retrieval-augmented generation via hierarchical retrieval interfaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.03442, 2026. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2602.03442. https://arxiv.org...

    2026 doi

  46. [64]

    From local to global: A GraphRAG approach to query-focused summarization

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

    2024 arXiv

  47. [65]

    What makes re-finding information difficult? a study of email re-finding

    David Elsweiler, Mark Baillie, and Ian Ruthven. What makes re-finding information difficult? a study of email re-finding. In Advances in Information Retrieval, pages 568--579, 2011. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20161-5_57. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20161-5_57

    2011 doi

  48. [66]

    HippoRAG : Neurobiologically inspired long-term memory for large language models

    Bernal Jim \'e nez Guti \'e rrez, Yiheng Shu, Yu Gu, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Yu Su. HippoRAG : Neurobiologically inspired long-term memory for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14831, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14831

    2024 arXiv

  49. [67]

    From RAG to memory: Non-parametric continual learning for large language models

    Bernal Jim \'e nez Guti \'e rrez, Yiheng Shu, Weijian Qi, Sizhe Zhou, and Yu Su. From RAG to memory: Non-parametric continual learning for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14802, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.14802

    2025 arXiv

  50. [68]

    RULER : What's the real context size of your long-context language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06654, 2024

    Cheng-Ping Hsieh, Simeng Sun, Samuel Kriman, Shantanu Acharya, Dima Rekesh, Fei Jia, Yang Zhang, and Boris Ginsburg. RULER : What's the real context size of your long-context language models? arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06654, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06654

    2024 arXiv

  51. [69]

    Evaluating memory in LLM agents via incremental multi-turn interactions

    Yuanzhe Hu, Yu Wang, and Julian McAuley. Evaluating memory in LLM agents via incremental multi-turn interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.05257, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.05257

    2025 arXiv

  52. [70]

    Unsupervised dense information retrieval with contrastive learning

    Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebastian Riedel, Piotr Bojanowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. Unsupervised dense information retrieval with contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2112.09118, 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.09118

    2021 arXiv

  53. [71]

    Search history support for finding and using information: User interface design recommendations from a user study

    Anita Komlodi, Gary Marchionini, and Dagobert Soergel. Search history support for finding and using information: User interface design recommendations from a user study. Information Processing & Management, 43 0 (1): 0 10--29, 2007. doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2006.05.017. https://doi.o...

    2007 doi

  54. [72]

    u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich K \"u ttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt \"a schel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. arXiv preprin...

    2005 arXiv

  55. [73]

    Towards deep conversational recommendations

    Raymond Li, Samira Ebrahimi Kahou, Hannes Schulz, Vincent Michalski, Laurent Charlin, and Chris Pal. Towards deep conversational recommendations. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 31, 2018. https://papers.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2018/hash/800de1...

    2018

  56. [74]

    Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang

    Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12: 0 157--173, 2024. doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00638...

    2024 doi

  57. [75]

    MemoChat : Tuning LLMs to use memos for consistent long-range open-domain conversation

    Junru Lu, Siyu An, Mingbao Lin, Gabriele Pergola, Yulan He, Di Yin, Xing Sun, and Yunsheng Wu. MemoChat : Tuning LLMs to use memos for consistent long-range open-domain conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08239, 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.08239

    2023 arXiv

  58. [76]

    Evaluating very long-term conversational memory of LLM agents

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

    2024 arXiv

  59. [77]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08560, 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.08560

    2023 arXiv

  60. [78]

    Vicky Zhao, Lili Qiu, and Jianfeng Gao

    Zhuoshi Pan, Qianhui Wu, Huiqiang Jiang, Xufang Luo, Hao Cheng, Dongsheng Li, Yuqing Yang, Chin-Yew Lin, H. Vicky Zhao, Lili Qiu, and Jianfeng Gao. On memory construction and retrieval for personalized conversational agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05589, 2025. https://arxiv...

    2025 arXiv

  61. [79]

    Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior

    Joon Sung Park, Joseph C O'Brien, Carrie J Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03442, 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442

    2023 arXiv

  62. [80]

    MemoRAG : Boosting long context processing with global memory-enhanced retrieval augmentation

    Hongjin Qian, Zheng Liu, Peitian Zhang, Kelong Mao, Defu Lian, Zhicheng Dou, and Tiejun Huang. MemoRAG : Boosting long context processing with global memory-enhanced retrieval augmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.05591, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.05591

    2024 arXiv

  63. [81]

    Zep : A temporal knowledge graph architecture for agent memory

    Preston Rasmussen, Pavlo Paliychuk, Travis Beauvais, Jack Ryan, and Daniel Chalef. Zep : A temporal knowledge graph architecture for agent memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13956, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.13956

    2025 arXiv

  64. [82]

    Risko and Sam J

    Evan F. Risko and Sam J. Gilbert. Cognitive offloading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20 0 (9): 0 676--688, 2016. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2016.07.002

    2016 doi

  65. [83]

    The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond

    Stephen Robertson and Hugo Zaragoza. The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 3 0 (4): 0 333--389, 2009. doi:10.1561/1500000019. https://doi.org/10.1561/1500000019

    2009 doi

  66. [84]

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

    2024 arXiv

  67. [85]

    Reflexion : Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion : Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.11366, 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.11366

    2023 arXiv

  68. [86]

    Ackerman, and David R

    Jaime Teevan, Christine Alvarado, Mark S. Ackerman, and David R. Karger. The perfect search engine is not enough: A study of orienteering behavior in directed search. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 415--422, 2004. doi:10.11...

    2004

  69. [87]

    Voyager : An open-ended embodied agent with large language models

    Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Mandlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. Voyager : An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291, 2023 a . https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.16291

    2023 arXiv

  70. [88]

    Recursively summarizing enables long-term dialogue memory in large language models

    Qingyue Wang, Yanhe Fu, Yanan Cao, Shuai Wang, Zhiliang Tian, and Liang Ding. Recursively summarizing enables long-term dialogue memory in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.15022, 2023 b . https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.15022

    2023 arXiv

  71. [89]

    MIRIX : Multi-agent memory system for LLM -based agents

    Yu Wang and Xi Chen. MIRIX : Multi-agent memory system for LLM -based agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07957, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.07957

    2025 arXiv

  72. [90]

    Am i wasting my time organizing email? a study of email refinding

    Steve Whittaker, Tara Matthews, Julian Cerruti, Hernan Badenes, and John Tang. Am i wasting my time organizing email? a study of email refinding. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pages 3449--3458, 2011. doi:10.1145/1978942.1979457....

    2011

  73. [91]

    LongMemEval : Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory

    Di Wu, Hongwei Wang, Wenhao Yu, Yuwei Zhang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Dong Yu. LongMemEval : Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10813, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10813

    2024 arXiv

  74. [92]

    A-Mem : Agentic memory for LLM agents

    Wujiang Xu, Zujie Liang, Kai Mei, Hang Gao, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang. A-Mem : Agentic memory for LLM agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12110, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12110

    2025 arXiv

  75. [93]

    DetectiveQA : Evaluating long-context reasoning on detective novels

    Zhe Xu, Jiasheng Ye, Xiaoran Liu, Xiangyang Liu, Tianxiang Sun, Zhigeng Liu, Qipeng Guo, Linlin Li, Qun Liu, Xuanjing Huang, and Xipeng Qiu. DetectiveQA : Evaluating long-context reasoning on detective novels. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02465, 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.02465

    2024 arXiv

  76. [94]

    B. Y. Yan, Chaofan Li, Hongjin Qian, Shuqi Lu, and Zheng Liu. General agentic memory via deep research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.18423, 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.18423

    2025

  77. [95]

    Grounding agent memory in contextual intent

    Ruozhen Yang, Yucheng Jiang, Yueqi Jiang, Priyanka Kargupta, Yunyi Zhang, and Jiawei Han. Grounding agent memory in contextual intent. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.10702, 2026. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.10702

    2026 arXiv

  78. [96]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629, 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.03629

    2022 arXiv

  79. [97]

    B ench: Extending long context evaluation beyond 100 K tokens

    Xinrong Zhang, Yingfa Chen, Shengding Hu, Zihang Xu, Junhao Chen, Moo Khai Hao, Xu Han, Zhen Leng Thai, Shuo Wang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. B ench: Extending long context evaluation beyond 100 K tokens. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Comp...

    2024

  80. [98]

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

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

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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