Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 5 cited by

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

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-06-28 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read LLM agents can reason over long histories by actively reconstructing memory from a Cue-Tag-Content graph instead of using static retrieval.

desk verdict The paper proposes a Cue-Tag-Content graph plus active reconstruction for LLM agent memory but supplies too few implementation and experimental details to assess the 23% gains. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.06036 v1 pith:3QMJ7JRY submitted 2026-06-04 cs.AI cs.IR

Shuo Ji , Yibo Li , Bryan Hooi This is my paper
classification cs.AIcs.IR
keywords LLMagentsmemorygraphactivereconstructionlong-horizonreasoningCue-Tag-Contentassociativeretrievalpruning
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 claims that static retrieve-then-reason pipelines limit LLM agents on long interaction histories because they cannot adapt retrieval to evidence found during inference. It introduces a memory representation as a Cue-Tag-Content graph in which associative tags act as semantic bridges, paired with an active reconstruction process that lets the LLM iteratively explore and prune retrieval paths. This integration of reasoning into memory access is presented as the way to handle long-horizon tasks without combinatorial explosion. Experiments on the LoCoMo and LongMemEval benchmarks report gains of up to 23 percent while lowering token and runtime costs.

What carries the argument

The Cue-Tag-Content graph, in which associative tags serve as semantic bridges between fine-grained cues and memory contents, operated on by an active reconstruction mechanism that integrates LLM reasoning into iterative path exploration and pruning.

What would settle it

Running the MRAgent framework against the same strong baselines on the LoCoMo and LongMemEval benchmarks and observing no accuracy gain or no reduction in token or runtime cost.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Memory for LLM agents is reconstructed rather than retrieved: an associative Cue-Tag-Content graph supplies semantic bridges via tags, and an active reconstruction mechanism folds LLM reasoning directly into the access process so that retrieval paths are explored and pruned on the basis of accumulating evidence.

Load-bearing premise

The Cue-Tag-Content graph can be built and maintained so that its associative tags reliably connect cues to contents without representation errors or overhead that cancels the efficiency gains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Memory access becomes dynamically adapted to intermediate evidence discovered during inference.
  • Unconstrained expansion of retrieval paths is prevented by evidence-driven pruning.
  • Long-horizon memory reasoning tasks become feasible with lower token consumption and shorter runtimes.
  • The rigid retrieve-then-reason pipeline is replaced by a unified reconstruction loop.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same graph-plus-reconstruction pattern could be tested on agent benchmarks that involve multi-turn tool use or multi-agent coordination.
  • If the tag-construction step can be made incremental, the method might support streaming memory updates without periodic rebuilds.
  • The approach may reduce the need for ever-larger context windows by keeping only the reconstructed subset active.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MRAgent, a memory-augmented LLM agent framework that represents interaction histories as a Cue-Tag-Content graph in which associative tags act as semantic bridges between cues and contents. It introduces an active reconstruction mechanism that integrates LLM reasoning into the retrieval process, allowing iterative exploration and pruning of paths based on intermediate evidence. The central claim is that this dynamic, evidence-driven approach outperforms static retrieve-then-reason baselines by up to 23% on the LoCoMo and LongMemEval benchmarks while also reducing token usage and runtime.

Significance. If the performance and efficiency claims hold under rigorous validation, the work would represent a meaningful shift from static memory retrieval to adaptive reconstruction in LLM agents, with potential applicability to long-horizon tasks. The graph-based associative structure combined with evidence-driven pruning is a conceptually coherent proposal that addresses a recognized limitation in current memory-augmented agents.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §4] Abstract and §4 (Experiments): The headline claim of 'significant improvements over strong baselines (up to 23%)' and 'substantially reducing token and runtime cost' is presented without any description of the baselines used, statistical tests performed, error bars, dataset splits, or ablation studies. This absence makes it impossible to evaluate whether the reported gains support the central claim that active reconstruction is responsible for the observed benefits.
  2. [§3] §3 (Method): The Cue-Tag-Content graph construction, tag generation procedure, and update rules are not specified in sufficient detail to assess the weakest assumption that associative tags can be maintained as low-error semantic bridges. Without an explicit algorithm or cost model for tag creation and maintenance, it is unclear whether the claimed efficiency gains survive the overhead of graph operations.
  3. [§3.2] §3.2 (Active Reconstruction): The pruning mechanism is described as using 'intermediate LLM evidence' to avoid combinatorial explosion, yet no formal condition, threshold, or termination criterion is given. This leaves open the possibility that the mechanism either omits relevant paths or fails to prune, directly undermining both accuracy and runtime claims.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3.1] Notation for the Cue-Tag-Content graph (e.g., how edges are typed and how tags are represented) is introduced without a formal definition or example instance, making the subsequent algorithmic description harder to follow.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states results on 'LoCoMo benchmark and LongMemEval benchmark' but does not indicate whether these are standard public benchmarks or newly introduced; a citation or brief description would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed feedback. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that directly respond to the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §4] Abstract and §4 (Experiments): The headline claim of 'significant improvements over strong baselines (up to 23%)' and 'substantially reducing token and runtime cost' is presented without any description of the baselines used, statistical tests performed, error bars, dataset splits, or ablation studies. This absence makes it impossible to evaluate whether the reported gains support the central claim that active reconstruction is responsible for the observed benefits.

    Authors: We agree that the presentation of results requires greater transparency. In the revised manuscript we will expand both the abstract and §4 to name every baseline, report error bars across multiple runs, specify dataset splits, include statistical significance tests, and add ablation studies that isolate the contribution of active reconstruction from the graph structure alone. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (Method): The Cue-Tag-Content graph construction, tag generation procedure, and update rules are not specified in sufficient detail to assess the weakest assumption that associative tags can be maintained as low-error semantic bridges. Without an explicit algorithm or cost model for tag creation and maintenance, it is unclear whether the claimed efficiency gains survive the overhead of graph operations.

    Authors: We will revise §3 to include an explicit algorithm (presented as pseudocode) for graph construction, tag generation, and update rules, together with a cost model that quantifies the overhead of tag maintenance relative to the observed token and runtime savings. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (Active Reconstruction): The pruning mechanism is described as using 'intermediate LLM evidence' to avoid combinatorial explosion, yet no formal condition, threshold, or termination criterion is given. This leaves open the possibility that the mechanism either omits relevant paths or fails to prune, directly undermining both accuracy and runtime claims.

    Authors: We accept that a more formal specification is needed. The revised §3.2 will define explicit pruning conditions, evidence thresholds, and termination criteria that govern path exploration and pruning, thereby clarifying how the mechanism balances completeness and efficiency. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: framework proposal evaluated on external benchmarks with no fitted predictions or self-referential derivations.

full rationale

The paper introduces MRAgent as a new Cue-Tag-Content graph plus active reconstruction mechanism, then reports empirical gains on the independent LoCoMo and LongMemEval benchmarks. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions appear that reduce by construction to the inputs; the central claims rest on the external benchmark results rather than any self-definition or self-citation chain. The absence of any load-bearing mathematical derivation makes circularity analysis inapplicable.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the untested premise that the proposed graph representation and reconstruction loop will produce the reported efficiency and accuracy gains; no independent evidence for these mechanisms is supplied beyond the new experiments.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Current memory-augmented agents rely on a static retrieve-then-reason paradigm that prevents dynamic adaptation.
    Stated as the motivating gap in the abstract.
invented entities (1)
  • Cue-Tag-Content graph
    purpose: To serve as associative memory structure with tags acting as semantic bridges between cues and contents.
    New representation introduced by the framework; no independent evidence provided outside the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Memory is Reconstructed, Not Retrieved: Graph Memory for LLM Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3QMJ7JRY

@misc{pith2026260606036,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Memory is Reconstructed, Not Retrieved: Graph Memory for LLM Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3QMJ7JRY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.06036}
}
read the original abstract

Despite recent progress, LLM agents still struggle with reasoning over long interaction histories. While current memory-augmented agents rely on a static retrieve-then-reason paradigm, this rigid pipeline design prevents them from dynamically adapting memory access to intermediate evidence discovered during inference. To bridge this gap, we propose MRAgent, a framework that combines an associative memory graph with an active reconstruction mechanism. We represent memory as a Cue-Tag-Content graph, where associative tags serve as semantic bridges connecting fine-grained cues to memory contents. Operating on this structure, our active reconstruction mechanism integrates LLM reasoning directly into memory access, allowing the agent to iteratively explore and prune retrieval paths based on accumulated evidence. This ensures that memory retrieval is dynamically adapted to the reasoning context while avoiding combinatorial explosion caused by unconstrained expansion. Experiments on the LoCoMo benchmark and LongMemEval benchmark demonstrate significant improvements over strong baselines (up to 23%), while substantially reducing token and runtime cost, highlighting the effectiveness of active and associative reconstruction for long-horizon memory reasoning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.06036 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison between passive retrieval and active memory reconstruction in MRAgent. are fundamentally constrained by their limited context win￾dows, which restrict their ability to retain interaction history over time (Hatalis et al., 2023). To mitigate these limitations, prior work equips LLM agents with external memory systems. Early approaches adopt Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) (Lewis et al., 2020), where m… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustrative example comparing passive retrieval and active reconstruction: passive retrieval only retrieves memory content related to Nate’s video game tournaments based on the query, while active reconstruction infers a critical temporal cue (“July”) through LLM reasoning and identifies Caroline’s corresponding activity. This perspective highlights two key challenges for LLM￾based memory systems, as illustrated in… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Functional correspondence between human memory reconstruction and the MRAgent architecture. where tags serve as intermediate associative structures that encode how cues are linked to memory contents and guide the memory reconstruction process. Memory content can be distinguished into episodic memory for concrete events and semantic memory for shared concepts and knowledge, as supported by cognitive neuroscience (Man… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: MRAgent: An Associative Memory System with LLM-Driven Active Memory Reconstruction. (a) MRAgent constructs an associative memory system from dialogues, organizing episodic and semantic memories through Cue–Tag–Content structures that explicitly encode semantic and rela…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation results on LOCOMO for multi-hop queries, evaluated using Recall and LLM-Judge (J) under Claude backbone. irrelevant paths before accessing expensive episodic content. This “on-demand” approach ensures that computational re￾sources are focused strictly on query…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Reasoning trajectory of MRAgent over the memory graph for a multi-session query. Starting from the cue “Jonna”, the agent traverses multiple associative tags to retrieve both episodic memories (e.g., screenplay submissions) and semantic information (e.g., background ab…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Left: An illustrative example of memory reconstruction given a query. Right: Pseudocode of the memory reconstruction algorithm. MRAgent operates under two execution modes, Ψ ∈ {Navigate, Answer}. In the Navigate mode, the agent invokes the toolkit to progressively expl…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Performance on multi-hop queries in LOCOMO as a function of the number of reasoning turns (T) and the per-round retrieval budget (K), evaluated under the Claude backbone using LLM-Judge (J). Reconstruction depth cannot be substituted by increased parallel exploration. …

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. LLM Agents Are Latent Context Managers: Eliciting Self-Managed Context via State Proprioception

    cs.CL 2026-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Exposing per-block token, recency, and access metadata with lossless archive/recovery elicits latent context management in untrained LLM agents and roughly doubles LOCA-Bench success under pressure.

  2. LLM Agents Are Latent Context Managers: Eliciting Self-Managed Context via State Proprioception

    cs.CL 2026-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A training-free, model-agnostic dashboard that exposes per-block context state (tokens, age, budget) with lossless archive/recovery improves long-horizon tool-agent performance on LOCA-Bench, BrowseComp-Plus, and GAIA.

  3. Why Git Is the Memory Solution for the Agentic Development Lifecycle

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Git-bound, routed memory for coding agents, with retrieval and answer-assembly evaluations, achieves ~0.31 MRR on seed retrieval and up to 0.83 answer-sufficiency on rationale questions, at token costs three orders of...

  4. LLM Agents Are Latent Context Managers: Eliciting Self-Managed Context via State Proprioception

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    VISTA supplies LLM agents with a visible proprioceptive dashboard of typed context blocks, enabling untrained self-management that lifts performance on long-horizon tool-use benchmarks across multiple model scales.

  5. LLM Agents Are Latent Context Managers: Eliciting Self-Managed Context via State Proprioception

    cs.CL 2026-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Giving LLM agents a visible dashboard of their context blocks, plus lossless archive and recovery, sharply improves long-horizon tool-agent performance without any training.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Nature Neuroscience , volume =

    The neurobiological foundation of memory retrieval , author =. Nature Neuroscience , volume =

  2. [2]

    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , volume =

    The cognitive neuroscience of memory representation , author =. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , volume =

  3. [3]

    Neuron , year =

    Key--value memory in the brain , author =. Neuron , year =

  4. [4]

    LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory , booktitle =

    Di Wu and Hongwei Wang and Wenhao Yu and Yuwei Zhang and Kai. LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory , booktitle =. 2025 , url =

    2025

  5. [10]

    Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series , volume=

    Memory matters: The need to improve long-term memory in llm-agents , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series , volume=

  6. [11]

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive

    Patrick Lewis and Ethan Perez and Aleksandra Piktus and Fabio Petroni and Vladimir Karpukhin and Naman Goyal and Heinrich K. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2020, NeurIPS 2020, December 6-12, 2020, virtual , year =

    2020

  7. [13]

    Organization of memory , volume=

    Episodic and semantic memory , author=. Organization of memory , volume=. 1972 , publisher=

    1972

  8. [14]

    Current opinion in neurobiology , volume=

    Brain networks underlying episodic memory retrieval , author=. Current opinion in neurobiology , volume=. 2013 , publisher=

    2013

Show all 49 references
  1. [18]

    2025 , howpublished =

    LangMem SDK for Agent Long-Term Memory , author =. 2025 , howpublished =

    2025

  2. [20]

    Science , volume=

    Competition between engrams influences fear memory formation and recall , author=. Science , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  3. [21]

    Neuron , volume=

    Semantic memory and the human hippocampus , author=. Neuron , volume=. 2003 , publisher=

    2003

  4. [22]

    A Survey of Self-Evolving Agents: What, When, How, and Where to Evolve on the Path to Artificial Super Intelligence , journal =

    Huan. A Survey of Self-Evolving Agents: What, When, How, and Where to Evolve on the Path to Artificial Super Intelligence , journal =. 2026 , biburl =

    2026

  5. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13614 , year=

    Memotime: Memory-augmented temporal knowledge graph enhanced large language model reasoning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13614 , year=

  6. [24]

    From Isolated Conversations to Hierarchical Schemas: Dynamic Tree Memory Representation for LLMs , author=

  7. [25]

    The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

    Secom: On memory construction and retrieval for personalized conversational agents , author=. The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations , year=

  8. [26]

    Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    In prospect and retrospect: Reflective memory management for long-term personalized dialogue agents , author=. Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  9. [31]

    Langley , title =

    P. Langley , title =. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 2000) , address =. 2000 , pages =

    2000

  10. [32]

    T. M. Mitchell. The Need for Biases in Learning Generalizations. 1980

    1980

  11. [33]

    M. J. Kearns , title =

  12. [34]

    Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. I. 1983

    1983

  13. [35]

    R. O. Duda and P. E. Hart and D. G. Stork. Pattern Classification. 2000

    2000

  14. [36]

    Suppressed for Anonymity , author=

  15. [37]

    Newell and P

    A. Newell and P. S. Rosenbloom. Mechanisms of Skill Acquisition and the Law of Practice. Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition. 1981

    1981

  16. [38]

    A. L. Samuel. Some Studies in Machine Learning Using the Game of Checkers. IBM Journal of Research and Development. 1959

    1959

  17. [39]

    Arigraph: Learning knowledge graph world models with episodic memory for llm agents

    Anokhin, P., Semenov, N., Sorokin, A., Evseev, D., Kravchenko, A., Burtsev, M., and Burnaev, E. Arigraph: Learning knowledge graph world models with episodic memory for llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04363, 2024

    2024

  18. [40]

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

    Chhikara, P., Khant, D., Aryan, S., Singh, T., and Yadav, D. Mem0: Building production-ready AI agents with scalable long-term memory. CoRR, abs/2504.19413, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2504.19413. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.19413

    2025 doi arXiv

  19. [41]

    Lightmem: Lightweight and efficient memory-augmented generation

    Fang, J., Deng, X., Xu, H., Jiang, Z., Tang, Y., Xu, Z., Deng, S., Yao, Y., Wang, M., Qiao, S., Chen, H., and Zhang, N. Lightmem: Lightweight and efficient memory-augmented generation. CoRR, abs/2510.18866, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2510.18866. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXi...

    2025 doi arXiv

  20. [42]

    Frankland, P. W. and Josselyn, S. A. The neurobiological foundation of memory retrieval. Nature Neuroscience, 22 0 (10): 0 1576--1585, 2019

    2019

  21. [43]

    A survey of self-evolving agents: What, when, how, and where to evolve on the path to artificial super intelligence

    Gao, H., Geng, J., Hua, W., Hu, M., Juan, X., Liu, H., Liu, S., Qiu, J., Qi, X., Ren, Q., Wu, Y., Wang, H., Xiao, H., Zhou, Y., Zhang, S., Zhang, J., Xiang, J., Fang, Y., Zhao, Q., Liu, D., Qian, C., Wang, Z., Hu, M., Wang, H., Wu, Q., Ji, H., and Wang, M. A survey of self-evo...

    2026

  22. [44]

    A., Mukherjee, S., Tang, X., He, Q., Hua, Z., Long, B., Zhao, T., Shah, N., Javari, A., Xia, Y., and Tang, J

    Han, H., Wang, Y., Shomer, H., Guo, K., Ding, J., Lei, Y., Halappanavar, M., Rossi, R. A., Mukherjee, S., Tang, X., He, Q., Hua, Z., Long, B., Zhao, T., Shah, N., Javari, A., Xia, Y., and Tang, J. Retrieval-augmented generation with graphs (graphrag). CoRR, abs/2501.00309, 202...

    2025 doi arXiv

  23. [45]

    Memory matters: The need to improve long-term memory in llm-agents

    Hatalis, K., Christou, D., Myers, J., Jones, S., Lambert, K., Amos-Binks, A., Dannenhauer, Z., and Dannenhauer, D. Memory matters: The need to improve long-term memory in llm-agents. In Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, volume 2, pp.\ 277--280, 2023

    2023

  24. [46]

    A definition of AGI

    Hendrycks, D., Song, D., Szegedy, C., Lee, H., Gal, Y., Brynjolfsson, E., Li, S., Zou, A., Levine, L., Han, B., Fu, J., Liu, Z., Shin, J., Lee, K., Mazeika, M., Phan, L., Ingebretsen, G., Khoja, A., Xie, C., Salaudeen, O., Hein, M., Zhao, K., Pan, A., Duvenaud, D., Li, B., Omo...

    2025 doi

  25. [47]

    Memory in the age of ai agents

    Hu, Y., Liu, S., Yue, Y., Zhang, G., Liu, B., Zhu, F., Lin, J., Guo, H., Dou, S., Xi, Z., et al. Memory in the age of ai agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.13564, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  26. [48]

    Licomemory: Lightweight and cognitive agentic memory for efficient long-term reasoning

    Huang, Z., Tian, Z., Guo, Q., Zhang, F., Zhou, Y., Jiang, D., and Zhou, X. Licomemory: Lightweight and cognitive agentic memory for efficient long-term reasoning. CoRR, abs/2511.01448, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2511.01448. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.01448

    2025 doi

  27. [49]

    Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning

    Jin, B., Zeng, H., Yue, Z., Wang, D., Zamani, H., and Han, J. Search-r1: Training llms to reason and leverage search engines with reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/2503.09516, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2503.09516. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.09516

    2025 doi arXiv

  28. [50]

    Memory OS of AI agent

    Kang, J., Ji, M., Zhao, Z., and Bai, T. Memory OS of AI agent. CoRR, abs/2506.06326, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2506.06326. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.06326

    2025 doi

  29. [51]

    Langmem sdk for agent long-term memory

    LangChain . Langmem sdk for agent long-term memory. https://blog.langchain.com/langmem-sdk-launch/, 2025. Accessed: 2025-01

    2025

  30. [52]

    u ttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W., Rockt \

    Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., K \" u ttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W., Rockt \" a schel, T., Riedel, S., and Kiela, D. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. In Larochelle, H., Ranzato, M., Hadsell, R., Balcan,...

    2020

  31. [53]

    Search-o1: Agentic search-enhanced large reasoning models

    Li, X., Dong, G., Jin, J., Zhang, Y., Zhou, Y., Zhu, Y., Zhang, P., and Dou, Z. Search-o1: Agentic search-enhanced large reasoning models. In Christodoulopoulos, C., Chakraborty, T., Rose, C., and Peng, V. (eds.), Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu...

    2025 doi

  32. [54]

    Evaluating very long-term conversational memory of LLM agents

    Maharana, A., Lee, D., Tulyakov, S., Bansal, M., Barbieri, F., and Fang, Y. Evaluating very long-term conversational memory of LLM agents. In Ku, L., Martins, A., and Srikumar, V. (eds.), Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (...

    2024 doi

  33. [55]

    R., Hopkins, R

    Manns, J. R., Hopkins, R. O., and Squire, L. R. Semantic memory and the human hippocampus. Neuron, 38 0 (1): 0 127--133, 2003

    2003

  34. [56]

    V., Qiu, L., et al

    Pan, Z., Wu, Q., Jiang, H., Luo, X., Cheng, H., Li, D., Yang, Y., Lin, C.-Y., Zhao, H. V., Qiu, L., et al. Secom: On memory construction and retrieval for personalized conversational agents. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  35. [57]

    J., Yan, C., Mercaldo, V., Hsiang, H.-L., Park, S., Cole, C

    Rashid, A. J., Yan, C., Mercaldo, V., Hsiang, H.-L., Park, S., Cole, C. J., De Cristofaro, A., Yu, J., Ramakrishnan, C., Lee, S. Y., et al. Competition between engrams influences fear memory formation and recall. Science, 353 0 (6297): 0 383--387, 2016

    2016

  36. [58]

    Zep: A temporal knowledge graph architecture for agent memory

    Rasmussen, P., Paliychuk, P., Beauvais, T., Ryan, J., and Chalef, D. Zep: A temporal knowledge graph architecture for agent memory. CoRR, abs/2501.13956, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2501.13956. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2501.13956

    2025 doi arXiv

  37. [59]

    Rugg, M. D. and Renoult, L. The cognitive neuroscience of memory representation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 155: 0 105450, 2025

    2025

  38. [60]

    In prospect and retrospect: Reflective memory management for long-term personalized dialogue agents

    Tan, Z., Yan, J., Hsu, I.-H., Han, R., Wang, Z., Le, L., Song, Y., Chen, Y., Palangi, H., Lee, G., et al. In prospect and retrospect: Reflective memory management for long-term personalized dialogue agents. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu...

    2025

  39. [61]

    Longmemeval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory

    Wu, D., Wang, H., Yu, W., Zhang, Y., Chang, K., and Yu, D. Longmemeval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025 . OpenReview.net, 2025. URL htt...

    2025

  40. [62]

    A-MEM: agentic memory for LLM agents

    Xu, W., Liang, Z., Mei, K., Gao, H., Tan, J., and Zhang, Y. A-MEM: agentic memory for LLM agents. CoRR, abs/2502.12110, 2025. doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2502.12110. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.12110

    2025 doi arXiv

  41. [63]

    Memorybank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory

    Zhong, W., Guo, L., Gao, Q., Ye, H., and Wang, Y. Memorybank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory. In Wooldridge, M. J., Dy, J. G., and Natarajan, S. (eds.), Thirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2024, Thirty-Sixth Conference on Innov...

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed June 28, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.