Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 55 references

A memory that extracts recurring attribute-value pairs from dialogues and images, induces schemas, and materializes them into queryable tables lets agents answer analytical questions that pure retrieval cannot.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 07:01 UTC pith:HHGGOYYH

load-bearing objection ADAMM makes a real architectural claim—complementing retrieval with induced analytic tables—and backs it with consistent gains, but the unmeasured extractor and unreported thresholds keep it from being fully convincing yet. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.29440 v1 pith:HHGGOYYH submitted 2026-07-31 cs.AI

Beyond Retrieval: Analytic Memory for Multimodal Agents

Zhoujin Tian , Yao Tian , Hao Zhang , Cheng Chen , Yakun Li , Lei Zhang , Xiaofang Zhou This is my paper
classification cs.AI
keywords multimodal memoryanalytic memoryretrieval-analysis mismatchschema inductionattribute-value extractionmemory-aware planningagent memorylong-term interactions
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that long-term multimodal memory has a retrieval-analysis mismatch: retrieval-based systems return relevant snippets but cannot compute over complete, correctly scoped records. It introduces analytic memory as a complement, built by extracting attribute-value observations from dialogue and images, inducing recurring schemas via support and confidence thresholds, and materializing them as tables. At query time, a planner selects and composes retrieval and analytic tools such as lookup, filter, compute, and rank. On two long-term multimodal memory benchmarks and two backbone models, the combined system outperforms retrieval-only baselines by up to 11.3% and 7.3%, respectively. A sympathetic reader would take the core claim to be that organizing observations into induced structures is what enables analytical questions.

Core claim

The central claim is that relevance-based retrieval alone is insufficient for analytical queries over accumulated multimodal observation logs, and the missing capability can be supplied by schema-induced analytic memory. ADAMM first uses an LLM extractor to turn each interaction round into provenance-linked attribute-value pairs, without assuming a schema. It then mines candidate attribute co-occurrences using support, admits new schemas when all-confidence is high, extends existing schemas when extension-confidence is high, and materializes each schema as a relational table with order and time columns, leaving missing values blank. At inference, a memory-aware planner first sees metadata ab

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a three-stage analytic memory pipeline. (1) Attribute Extraction: an LLM reads each round's dialogue and images and emits attribute-value pairs with provenance links to supporting spans or regions. (2) Schema Induction: frequent-itemset-style support counting finds recurring attribute sets; all-confidence, defined as the support of a set divided by the maximum support of its members, gates new-schema discovery; extension-confidence, defined as the support of a candidate divided by the support of the existing schema, gates schema evolution. (3) Memory Materialization: each admitted schema becomes a table whose columns are the schema's attributes plus order and time,

Load-bearing premise

The whole pipeline rests on the assumption that the extractor reliably finds every grounded attribute-value pair in each round; if fields are missed or wrong, the induced schemas, tables, and computed answers inherit those errors.

What would settle it

Measure extraction precision and recall on a human-annotated subset of the Health task, then corrupt or delete a random fraction of extracted fields and check whether table-based COMPUTE answers degrade accordingly. If deletion barely affects accuracy, the analytic-memory advantage would not be attributable to correct structure; if accuracy degrades sharply, the extraction assumption is load-bearing.

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

If this is right

  • Analytical queries that previously required complete retrieval, such as averages, sums, rankings, and temporal windows, become answerable by deterministic table operations, reducing the coverage-context trade-off.
  • No application-defined schema is needed at build time; schemas emerge from recurring observations and can evolve as new attributes appear.
  • Queries can be decomposed into mixed retrieval-and-compute plans, so the same memory supports both semantic recall and structured analysis.
  • The approach generalizes across answer backbones and benchmark styles, suggesting the gain comes from memory organization rather than from a single model.
  • The progressive planner allows later operations to consume intermediate outputs, such as using a located event's timestamp as a constraint for a subsequent computation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same schema-induction approach could be applied to other append-only multimodal logs, such as embodied navigation or tool-use traces, where recurring observations hide analytical patterns.
  • Because the planner only sees table metadata, not full contents, the design suggests a natural scaling path for long horizons: analytic tables grow in rows while planning context stays bounded.
  • A testable extension would be confidence-aware extraction: if the extractor emits per-attribute confidence, schema induction could down-weight uncertain fields before thresholds are applied, addressing the paper's stated limitation.
  • The retrieval-analysis distinction may generalize beyond memory: any system that both recalls and computes over evidence could benefit from explicitly separating relevance-based access from deterministic analytical access.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that existing multimodal agent memory systems, organized around relevance-based retrieval, are poorly suited to analytical questions that require complete records and operations such as filtering, aggregation, ranking, and temporal comparison. It introduces ADAMM, which adds an "analytic memory" layer to standard retrieval memory. The construction pipeline has three stages: (i) an LLM-based extractor identifies grounded attribute--value pairs from each interaction round (Eq. 1); (ii) a schema-induction procedure mines recurring attribute co-occurrences using support, all-confidence, and extension-confidence (Eqs. 3--7); and (iii) each induced schema is materialized as a relational table, while retrieval memory is organized as a topic--episode--event hierarchy. At inference, a planner first builds a query-conditioned metadata context (Eq. 9), generates a high-level plan, and then progressively instantiates tool calls whose later arguments depend on earlier outputs. The paper evaluates ADAMM on MemEye and MemGallery with two backbone models, reporting consistent improvements over unimodal, multimodal, and RAG baselines, with headline gains of up to 11.3 and 7.3 percentage points. An ablation on MemEye shows drops when either analytic or retrieval memory is removed and when planning context or progressive execution is ablated.

Significance. If the empirical claims hold, the paper makes a useful conceptual contribution by separating analytic memory from retrieval memory and by showing that schema induction over LLM-extracted observations can support executable analysis in multimodal settings. The framework is clearly motivated, the schema-induction formalism follows standard frequent-itemset and all-confidence ideas, and the evaluation is broader than many memory papers: two benchmarks, six metrics, two backbones, and ablations. The fine-grained task analysis in Figure 3 gives a plausible mechanistic account of where the gains come from (tasks requiring exact operations over recurring records). The paper also transparently acknowledges its main vulnerability: extraction errors propagate through schema induction and downstream computation. However, this limitation is never quantified, and the manuscript does not report key thresholds or run-level variance. These omissions make it difficult to assess whether the reported gains are robust properties of analytic memory or artifacts of particular extraction quality, threshold choices, or evaluation noise. The central idea is defensible and worth publishing, but the current

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.1, Eq. (1); Limitations] The pipeline's load-bearing assumption is that the LLM Extractor identifies 'every grounded attribute–value correspondence' with sufficient precision and recall. The manuscript reports no extraction accuracy, no error analysis, and no sensitivity study on how imperfect extraction affects schema induction, table population, or downstream COMPUTE results. The Limitations section itself concedes that 'Incorrect or missing fields may propagate to schema induction, table construction, and downstream computations.' Since the paper's central claim is that analytic memory produces the observed gains, the authors should provide at least a manual or automatic evaluation of extractor precision/recall, and ideally a perturbation analysis (e.g., adding/deleting extracted fields) to show the results are not driven by extraction artifacts.
  2. [§4.1, Table 3] The main results are averaged over only 3 runs, and no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. Several margins are small (e.g., 2.2–2.6 percentage points for MemGallery with GPT-5.4-mini), so without run-level variability it is impossible to know whether these differences are reliable. The paper repeatedly claims 'consistent' improvements; this requires statistical support. Please report per-run results or error bars and perform significance tests where appropriate.
  3. [§3.3.2, Eqs. (4), (6), (7); §3.5.2, Eq. (9)] The schema-induction thresholds θ_s, θ_a, θ_e and the metadata-ranking weight λ are never reported. These parameters control which schemas are discovered, whether schemas evolve, and which planning candidates are exposed to the planner. Without their values, the experiments cannot be reproduced, and the reader cannot judge whether the results are sensitive to particular threshold choices. The authors should report the exact thresholds used, and ideally perform a sensitivity analysis over reasonable ranges.
  4. [§4.3, Figure 4] The ablation supporting the complementarity of analytic and retrieval memory is conducted only on MemEye, and only two task categories (Health and Brand) are shown. The paper's claims about general benefit across benchmarks would be stronger if the same ablation were run on MemGallery, especially on tasks such as Conflict Detection and Knowledge Resolution where structured access is said to matter most. As it stands, the complementarity claim is supported on only one benchmark.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] The paper does not provide the exact prompts used for the Extractor, planner, metadata generation, or answer model. These prompts are essential for reproducibility, particularly since the pipeline is LLM-driven.
  2. [Figure 3] The category abbreviations in Figure 3 (AR, CD, FR, KR, MRTR, TTL, VR, VS) are not defined in the caption or text. They should be expanded or listed in a legend.
  3. [General] Typos and formatting issues: 'systems emphasizes' in the Introduction; 'MemGalleryreports' in §4.1; 'consistant' in §4.2; 'retrieval memory' tool row in Table 1 is missing a capital letter. These do not affect substance but should be corrected.
  4. [§4.1] The sentence 'we use Top-10 retrieved memory units for retrieval memory baselines' is ambiguous: is this a budget for all baselines, and if so, how does it interact with ADAMM's shared budget of 10 evidence units? Clarify the comparison protocol.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation; the only self-citation is peripheral background.

full rationale

ADAMM's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The analytic memory pipeline (Eqs. 1-7) starts from an LLM extractor over rounds, applies standard frequent-itemset statistics (support, all-confidence, extension confidence) to induce schemas, and materializes tables; query processing (Eqs. 8-11) plans tool calls over those tables. None of these equations encodes the MemEye/MemGallery answers or the reported 11.3%/7.3% gains, and the evaluation is against external benchmarks. The retrieval hierarchy follows external prior work (Yue et al., 2026), while the only self-citation, Huang et al. 2025, appears in a Related Work sentence on "temporal or relational organization" and is not used to justify ADAMM's central analytic-memory claim. The Limitations passage ("Incorrect or missing fields may propagate to schema induction, table construction, and downstream computations") flags an extraction-accuracy risk, and the unreported thresholds θ_s, θ_a, θ_e and λ in Eq. 9 are reproducibility/overfitting risks, but these are not circularity because the framework does not fit target outputs into its construction. Score 2 reflects only the minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the LLM extractor faithfully converting multimodal rounds into attribute-value fragments, on the statistical recurrence metrics picking stable schemas, and on the planner successfully routing queries. These are domain assumptions, not standard mathematical axioms. No free physical parameters are fit, but four implementation thresholds are unreported hand-chosen constants that could have been tuned on the benchmarks.

free parameters (4)
  • theta_s (support threshold)
    Used in Eq. 4 to decide whether a candidate pattern recurs sufficiently. Value not reported; performance may depend on it.
  • theta_a (all-confidence threshold)
    Used in Eq. 6 to admit new schemas. Value not reported; no sensitivity analysis.
  • theta_e (extension-confidence threshold)
    Used in Eq. 7 to decide schema evolution. Value not reported; no sensitivity analysis.
  • lambda (metadata-rank weight)
    Used in Eq. 9 to balance semantic embedding and token-similarity when constructing the planning context. Value not reported.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Each interaction round can be decomposed into a set of attribute-value observations by an LLM extractor without a predefined schema.
    Section 3.3.1, Eq. 1: the entire analytic memory pipeline depends on extraction completeness and accuracy; the authors acknowledge this in Limitations but do not evaluate it.
  • domain assumption Recurring co-occurrence of attributes (support, all-confidence, extension-confidence) is a reliable signal for schema stability and schema evolution.
    Section 3.3.2, Eqs. 3-7: the framework assumes frequent co-occurrence across rounds is sufficient to infer stable fields, with no theoretical guarantee or sensitivity analysis over thresholds.
  • domain assumption An LLM planner can generate correct high-level plans using only metadata and progressive tool outputs.
    Section 3.5.2: no error analysis of the planner is provided; query routing quality is a load-bearing black box.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 10733 in / 12850 out tokens · 132706 ms · 2026-08-03T07:01:32.670247+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Long-term multimodal memory must support not only retrieving relevant information but also computing over observations accumulated across interactions. Existing systems largely emphasize \emph{retrieval memory}, organizing interaction histories through summaries and indexes to return query-relevant information at multiple granularities, from high-level abstractions to underlying records. In this paper, we formulate \emph{analytic memory} as a complementary abstraction that organizes recurring multimodal observations into queryable structures supporting filtering, aggregation, ranking, and temporal comparison. We present AdaMM, a framework that jointly supports retrieval and analytic memory. Rather than relying on application-defined schemas, AdaMM extracts provenance-linked attribute-value observations from dialogue, images, and contextual metadata, discovers recurring field structures, and materializes them for analytical access. At inference time, a memory-aware planner decomposes queries into retrieval and analytic operations and routes each operation to the appropriate tools. Experiments on two long-term multimodal memory benchmarks, MemEye and MemGallery, show that AdaMM improves performance by up to 11.3\% and 7.3\%, respectively.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.29440 by Cheng Chen, Hao Zhang, Lei Zhang, Xiaofang Zhou, Yakun Li, Yao Tian, Zhoujin Tian.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Long-term multimodal interaction histories [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of ADAMM. It complements recall-oriented retrieval memory with schema-induced analytic memory over recurrent multimodal observations. At query time, an operation planner jointly considers the query and the instantiated memories to select designed access tools for answer generation. Candidate Pattern Mining. For each extracted record fragment Ot , let At = {atℓ : (atℓ, xtℓ, ptℓ) ∈ Ot} (2) denote th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: LLM-as-Judge performance across fine￾grained tasks with GPT-5.4-mini. Fine-grained task analysis. To further examine where the improvement arises, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Ablation results on MemEye. Overall and task-level LLM-as-Judge accuracy using GPT-5.4-mini. ral analysis over multiple personal-health records, whereas the Brand task primarily evaluates visually grounded recall of brand-related information. In w/o Analytic and w/o Retrieval, we disable the an￾alytic memory and retrieval memory, respectively. In w/o Planning Context, the planner receives the entire memory… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 26 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Omiecinski , title =

    Edward R. Omiecinski , title =. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , volume =. 2003 , doi =

    2003

  2. [2]

    Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

    Hypermem: Hypergraph memory for long-term conversations , author=. Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pages=

  3. [3]

    From Unstructured Recall to Schema-Grounded Memory: Reliable

    Petrov, Alex and Gusak, Alexander and Mukha, Denis and Korolev, Dima , journal =. From Unstructured Recall to Schema-Grounded Memory: Reliable. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  4. [4]

    Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases , pages =

    Fast Algorithms for Mining Association Rules in Large Databases , author =. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases , pages =

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20963 , year=

    EraRAG: Efficient and Incremental Retrieval Augmented Generation for Growing Corpora , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.20963 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Wanjun Zhong and Lianghong Guo and Qiqi Gao and He Ye and Yanlin Wang , title =

  7. [7]

    MemOS: An Operating System for Memory-Augmented Generation

    Zhiyu Li and Shichao Song and Hanyu Wang and Simin Niu and Ding Chen and Jiawei Yang and Chenyang Xi and Huayi Lai and Jihao Zhao and Yezhaohui Wang and Junpeng Ren and Zehao Lin and Jiahao Huo and Tianyi Chen and Kai Chen and Kehang Li and Zhiqiang Yin and Qingchen Yu and Bo Tang and Hongkang Yang and Zhi. MemOS: An Operating System for Memory-Augmented ...

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04338 , year=

    In-depth Analysis of Graph-based RAG in a Unified Framework , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.04338 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09891 , year=

    ArchRAG: Attributed Community-based Hierarchical Retrieval-Augmented Generation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.09891 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [10]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08445 , year=

    Clue-RAG: Towards Accurate and Cost-Efficient Graph-based RAG via Multi-Partite Graph and Query-Driven Iterative Retrieval , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.08445 , year=

    arXiv

  11. [11]

    Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment

    Scalable Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Locality-Sensitive Hashing , author=. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment. ISSN , volume=

  12. [12]

    Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment

    Towards the Next Generation of Agent Systems: From RAG to Agentic AI , author=. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment. ISSN , volume=

  13. [13]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17753 , year=

    Evaluating very long-term conversational memory of llm agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17753 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10813 , year=

    Longmemeval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10813 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19413 , year=

    Mem0: Building production-ready ai agents with scalable long-term memory , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19413 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  16. [16]

    Zep: A temporal knowledge graph architecture for agent memory, 2025 , author=

    2025

  17. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12110 , year=

    A-mem: Agentic memory for llm agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12110 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [18]

    Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages=

    A survey on rag meeting llms: Towards retrieval-augmented large language models , author=. Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery and data mining , pages=

  19. [19]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

  20. [20]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130 , year=

    From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.16130 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    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=

  22. [22]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05459 , year=

    Personal llm agents: Insights and survey about the capability, efficiency and security , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05459 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609 , year=

    Qwen technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , year=

    Gpt-4 technical report , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09136 , year=

    Agentic retrieval-augmented generation: A survey on agentic rag , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.09136 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10499 , year=

    Graph-based Approaches and Functionalities in Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Comprehensive Survey , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10499 , year=

    arXiv

  27. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10147 , year=

    A survey of personalization: From rag to agent , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10147 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    ACM Transactions on Information Systems , volume=

    A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model-based agents , author=. ACM Transactions on Information Systems , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  29. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06105 , year=

    You Don't Need Pre-built Graphs for RAG: Retrieval Augmented Generation with Adaptive Reasoning Structures , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.06105 , year=

    arXiv

  30. [30]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05690 , year=

    When to use graphs in rag: A comprehensive analysis for graph retrieval-augmented generation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05690 , year=

    arXiv

  31. [31]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07957 , year=

    Mirix: Multi-agent memory system for llm-based agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.07957 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  32. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.07624 , year=

    M2A: Multimodal Memory Agent with Dual-Layer Hybrid Memory for Long-Term Personalized Interactions , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.07624 , year=

    arXiv

  33. [33]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16493 , year=

    MMA: Multimodal Memory Agent , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.16493 , year=

    arXiv

  34. [34]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.28806 , year=

    Personal Visual Memory from Explicit and Implicit Evidence , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.28806 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08560 , year=

    MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08560 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13919 , year=

    WebVoyager: Building an End-to-End Web Agent with Large Multimodal Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13919 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13649 , year=

    VisualWebArena: Evaluating Multimodal Agents on Realistic Visual Web Tasks , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.13649 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [38]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07972 , year=

    OSWorld: Benchmarking Multimodal Agents for Open-Ended Tasks in Real Computer Environments , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07972 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10529 , year=

    Mementos: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Model Reasoning over Image Sequences , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10529 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378 , year=

    PaLM-E: An Embodied Multimodal Language Model , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.03378 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291 , year=

    Voyager: An Open-Ended Embodied Agent with Large Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16291 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  42. [42]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629 , year=

    ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.03629 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  43. [43]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761 , year=

    Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04761 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [44]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01448 , year=

    LiCoMemory: Lightweight and Cognitive Agentic Memory for Efficient Long-Term Reasoning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.01448 , year=

    arXiv

  45. [45]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.15128 , year=

    MemEye: A Visual-Centric Evaluation Framework for Multimodal Agent Memory , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.15128 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  46. [46]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03515 , year=

    Mem-Gallery: Benchmarking Multimodal Long-Term Conversational Memory for MLLM Agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03515 , year=

    arXiv

  47. [47]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.02553 , year=

    SimpleMem: Efficient Lifelong Memory for LLM Agents , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.02553 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  48. [48]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.01007 , year=

    Omni-SimpleMem: Autoresearch-Guided Discovery of Lifelong Multimodal Agent Memory , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.01007 , year=

    arXiv

  49. [49]

    Aho and Jeffrey D

    Alfred V. Aho and Jeffrey D. Ullman , title =. 1972

    1972

  50. [50]

    Publications Manual , year = "1983", publisher =

    1983

  51. [51]

    Chandra and Dexter C

    Ashok K. Chandra and Dexter C. Kozen and Larry J. Stockmeyer , year = "1981", title =. doi:10.1145/322234.322243

    arXiv 1981

  52. [52]

    Scalable training of

    Andrew, Galen and Gao, Jianfeng , booktitle=. Scalable training of

  53. [53]

    Dan Gusfield , title =. 1997

    1997

  54. [54]

    Tetreault , title =

    Mohammad Sadegh Rasooli and Joel R. Tetreault , title =. Computing Research Repository , volume =. 2015 , url =

    2015

  55. [55]

    A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =

    Ando, Rie Kubota and Zhang, Tong , Issn =. A Framework for Learning Predictive Structures from Multiple Tasks and Unlabeled Data , Volume =. Journal of Machine Learning Research , Month = dec, Numpages =