Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 32 references

A three-layer memory hierarchy lets robots keep slow planning rare while still finishing long-horizon tasks.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 02:23 UTC pith:X36PM5RB

load-bearing objection Solid hierarchical VLA systems paper: real-robot gains from Sentry + cross-modal CRUD memory are real within three tasks; Sentry low-recall/fallback is a soft spot but does not erase the ablations. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03449 v1 pith:X36PM5RB submitted 2026-07-03 cs.RO cs.AI

HiMe: Hierarchical Embodied Memory for Long-Horizon Vision-Language-Action Control

Li Ji , Siyin Wang , Pengfang Qian , Xiaopeng Yu , Yihai Tian , Zhaoye Fei , Jingjing Gong , Xipeng Qiu This is my paper
classification cs.RO cs.AI
keywords hierarchical embodied memoryvision-language-actionlong-horizon manipulationworking memoryepisodic memorySentryactive memory managementcross-modal schemas
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.

Robots that map camera images straight to motor commands forget too quickly to finish multi-step jobs that depend on earlier events or user preferences. Heavy vision-language models can reason over history, but they are too slow to run at control rates. HiMe splits the work into three layers: a fast Executor that only needs the current subgoal and image, a light Sentry that watches a short window of frames and decides when a subgoal is finished, and a heavy Planner that is called only at those sparse moments. The Planner keeps a cross-modal episodic store that can Add, Update, or Delete facts about objects, locations, and preferences, so the robot can revise its beliefs when the world or the user changes. On three real tabletop tasks that demand inspection, counting, preference recall, and later restoration, the design reaches roughly 90 percent average task progress—near a human high-level oracle—while cutting Planner calls by about three times relative to flat FIFO memory.

Core claim

Decoupling embodied control into a high-frequency Executor, a progress-aware Sentry that gates working memory, and a low-frequency Planner that actively manages cross-modal episodic memory (Add/Update/Delete) resolves the frequency-competence paradox and raises long-horizon success far above flat or memory-less hierarchical baselines.

What carries the argument

Hierarchical Embodied Memory (HiMe): transient memory for the Executor, working memory plus a Sentry trigger for sparse hand-off, and episodic memory (contextual + procedural) that the Planner edits with explicit Add, Update, and Delete operations over cross-modal schemas.

Load-bearing premise

A light vision-language model watching only a short sliding window of frames can decide when a subgoal is done reliably enough that sparse Planner calls still keep the whole task coherent, even though its recall for “done” is low and a fixed-interval fallback is required.

What would settle it

On the same three WidowX tasks, replace the Sentry with pure fixed-interval Planner calls or with a Sentry that has high recall for completion; if average task progress collapses or Planner API calls stop dropping relative to the flat-memory baseline, the claimed gating benefit is false.

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

If this is right

  • Long-horizon VLA systems can keep a strong multimodal reasoner out of the high-frequency control loop without sacrificing global consistency.
  • Active Add/Update/Delete memory lets a robot revise ownership, recipe, or placement preferences mid-episode instead of replaying stale FIFO frames.
  • Cross-modal (image + text) episodic stores outperform pure text or pure image memory for tasks that mix spatial grounding with semantic constraints.
  • The same hierarchy can be paired with open-source Planners and still retain the relative gains over flat memory.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If Sentry recall remains low, the real reliability of the architecture may rest more on the fixed-interval Planner fallback than the authors emphasize.
  • Scaling the same Add/Update/Delete store to multi-room or multi-day horizons will likely need stronger consolidation or hierarchical forgetting policies beyond the current unlimited store.
  • The pattern—cheap monitor + sparse heavy reasoner + editable cross-modal store—could transfer to other partially observed sequential domains that face the same latency-versus-competence trade-off.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HiMe, a three-layer hierarchical embodied memory for long-horizon VLA control: a high-frequency Executor (fine-tuned π0.5), a lightweight Sentry (Qwen3-VL-8B) that monitors a short working-memory window and gates planning, and a heavy Planner (GPT-4o / open-source VLM) that maintains cross-modal episodic memory with explicit Add/Update/Delete operations. The central claim is that this design resolves the frequency–competence paradox and yields ~90% average task progress with ~3× fewer Planner API calls than flat FIFO memory on three real-robot tabletop tasks (Object Search, Counting, Rearrangement), approaching a human high-level oracle while enabling preference-driven self-correction of memory.

Significance. If the results hold under broader evaluation, HiMe is a useful systems contribution to hierarchical robot foundation models: it cleanly separates reactive control from sparse multimodal reasoning, demonstrates that active CRUD-style memory consolidation outperforms passive FIFO keyframe buffers, and reports real-robot gains with open-source code and an open-source Planner swap. Strengths include consistent ablations (Sentry vs periodic planning, modality, management, fixed-budget memory, open-source Planner) and explicit efficiency metrics (API calls, memory hit rate). The work is incremental relative to prior hierarchical VLAs and memory agents (Hi-Robot, MemER, etc.), but the combination of progress-gated planning with cross-modal active memory is practically relevant for long-horizon human–robot collaboration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 5.4, Fig. 7; Fig. 4; Tab. 2] Sec. 5.4 and Fig. 7 show that the Sentry is deliberately conservative: at hs=8, recall for subtask “Done” is only ~35% (precision ~82%), so a fixed-interval Planner fallback is required to break loops. The main efficiency/coherence claim (Fig. 4, Tab. 2: ~90% progress, ~3× fewer API calls) attributes gains to Sentry-triggered sparse planning, yet the manuscript never reports the fraction of Planner invocations caused by true Sentry handovers versus the fallback. Without this breakdown—and without an ablation that disables fallback while keeping Sentry—the causal contribution of progress-aware gating remains only partially secured. Please quantify trigger sources on the main runs and discuss how much of the API reduction and consistency gain is due to structured infinite memory/CRUD versus the fallback cadence.
  2. [Sec. 4.1–4.2, Fig. 4; App. C.3; Limitations] Evaluation is limited to three custom WidowX tabletop tasks (pick-and-place primitives, 20 trials per method per task) with no matched simulation benchmark or statistical significance tests (e.g., confidence intervals / paired tests across trials). The Limitations section acknowledges this, but the abstract and conclusion still state that the approach “significantly improving success rates in long-horizon tasks” and “bridges the gap to human-level performance.” Given that App. C.3 already shows progress declining from 92.5% to 66.7% as multi-round Object Search grows to 12 subtasks, the central generalization claim needs tighter scoping and, ideally, either (i) error bars / significance on Fig. 4 or (ii) at least one additional longer-horizon or more diverse skill setting. As written, the 90% average is over a narrow task suite.
  3. [Abstract; Sec. 3.3–3.4; Sec. 5.2; Fig. 6] The “self-correct its internal knowledge based on human preferences” claim (abstract, intro, conclusion) is important for novelty relative to retrieval-only memory, but the main results report only aggregate Task Progress / Memory Hit / API Calls. There is no dedicated metric or qualitative trace showing Update/Delete correcting a conflicting preference (e.g., bean preference in Counting, placement rules in Rearrangement) versus simply overwriting via replan. Please add a short case study or quantitative memory-edit audit (how often Update/Delete fire, and whether they remove the obsolete preference) so the plasticity claim is evidenced rather than inferred from overall success.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.3–3.4; Sec. 4.1] Notation inconsistency: monitoring interval is nm in Sec. 3.3/3.4 but described as “every 10 execution steps” in Sec. 4.1; buffer size hs=8 is clear, but the relationship between Executor open-loop chunks (5 of 10 actions) and Sentry query cadence should be stated once in a single control-loop diagram or paragraph.
  2. [Fig. 4; Tab. 5; Abstract] Fig. 4 y-axis is labeled “Task Progress (%)” while the abstract and intro often say “success rates”; Tab. 5 defines Task Progress as fraction of completed subtasks. Align terminology throughout to avoid overstating binary success.
  3. [Sec. 2.2–2.3] Related Work could more sharply contrast HiMe’s explicit CRUD schema against MemER’s FIFO+keyframe design and against text-only agent memory (MemGPT, A-Mem); the distinction is present but somewhat diffuse in Sec. 2.2–2.3.
  4. [App. B; App. D] Appendix prompts are valuable for reproducibility; consider noting temperature and any few-shot examples used for GPT-4o in the main text or App. B so the Planner is fully specified.
  5. [Throughout] Minor typos/style: “T o” spacing artifacts (e.g., “T o resolve”, “T o bridge”), “L VLMs”, and occasional capitalization of “Add, Update, and Delete” mid-sentence. Clean for camera-ready.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical systems paper whose success rates and API counts are measured against external task criteria, not forced by definitional identities or fitted constants.

full rationale

HiMe is an empirical robotics systems paper. It defines a hierarchical Executor–Sentry–Planner architecture with cross-modal episodic memory and explicit Add/Update/Delete operations, then measures task progress, Planner API calls, and memory hit rate on three real-robot long-horizon tasks against fixed external success criteria (subtask completion, human high-level oracle, and flat/transient baselines; Fig. 4, Tab. 2, Tab. 5). The reported ~90% average progress and ~3× API reduction are outcomes of running the system, not algebraic identities that reduce the outputs to the inputs by construction. Hyperparameters (hs=8, nm≈5/10 Executor steps, TopK retrieval) are design choices, not parameters fitted to the target metrics and then re-labeled as predictions. Related-work citations (including any author-overlapping background papers) supply context and are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems that forbid alternatives or alone entail the measured gains. Ablations (Transient Memory, Flat Memory, HiMe w/o Sentry, modality and management variants) further compare systems under the same external metrics. Skeptical concerns about Sentry low recall and fallback cadence affect causal attribution of the gains, not circularity of the derivation. No self-definitional loop, fitted-input-as-prediction, or self-citation chain forces the central claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on standard hierarchical-control and VLM assumptions plus a few hand-chosen system hyperparameters and architectural entities (Sentry, episodic CRUD memory). No physical free constants; risk is mainly that Sentry gating and zero-shot Planner memory edits transfer beyond the three tabletop tasks.

free parameters (4)
  • working_memory_window_hs = 8
    Sliding window length for Sentry; set to 8 frames and shown to affect precision/recall (Fig. 7).
  • sentry_monitoring_interval = nm=5 / every 10 Executor steps
    How often Sentry is queried relative to Executor steps; methods state nm=5 while evaluation describes query after every 10 Executor steps—hand-chosen control of planning frequency.
  • memory_TopK_and_retrieval_thresholding = TopK (unspecified K); δ decision threshold
    Retrieval returns TopK contextual entries via text-embedding-3 cosine similarity; K and any decision threshold δ for Sentry are system knobs that affect Planner context.
  • FIFO_or_limited_memory_budget = 8 entries
    Ablations cap memory at 8 entries to match average active-memory size; budget is a design choice that changes measured progress.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Given an active language subgoal τ_t, the Executor’s optimal action is approximately conditionally independent of long-term history (local Markov property).
    Stated in Sec. 3.3 to justify a memory-free high-frequency VLA Executor.
  • domain assumption A lightweight VLM can detect subgoal completion/failure from a short recent-frame window well enough to amortize Planner cost.
    Core of the Sentry design (Eq. 2); paper itself reports low recall and needs fallback.
  • domain assumption Zero-shot/few-shot large VLMs can perform reliable multimodal memory CRUD and re-planning from prompts without task-specific training.
    Planner and Sentry are not fine-tuned for the tasks; only Executor is trained (Sec. 3.4).
  • ad hoc to paper Human multi-store memory (transient/working/episodic) is a useful architectural template for robot control.
    Motivational framing in Introduction/Methods; not independently validated as necessary, only as design inspiration.
invented entities (2)
  • Sentry (progress-aware working-memory gate) no independent evidence
    purpose: Asynchronously filter sensory stream and trigger Planner only at subtask junctions.
    Named architectural module; evaluated via ablations but not an independently measured natural object.
  • Cross-modal episodic memory with explicit Add/Update/Delete schema no independent evidence
    purpose: Store object-centric visual+text facts and actively revise preferences/states for long-horizon consistency.
    Core proposed knowledge system; evidence is internal task success, not external independent measurement.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 22920 in / 3247 out tokens · 32589 ms · 2026-07-12T02:23:29.869807+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Current Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models excel at robotic manipulation but often struggle with non-Markovian tasks requiring long-term memory and reasoning due to their reliance on immediate observations. Existing solutions face a ''frequency-competence paradox,'' where stronger reasoning models are too slow for real-time control, while faster models lack sufficient reasoning capabilities. To resolve this architectural misalignment, we propose HiMe, a Hierarchical Embodied Memory framework that decouples embodied intelligence into a high-frequency Executor for execution, a Sentry for working memory, and a Planner for long-term strategy. We also introduce a dynamic knowledge system based on cross-modal semantic schemas and active management mechanisms, allowing robots to maintain memory plasticity through ''Add, Update, and Delete'' operations. This hierarchical design effectively balances the conflict between real-time execution and slow thinking planning, significantly improving success rates in long-horizon tasks. Experiments demonstrate that this approach not only outperforms flat memory baselines but also exhibits the novel ability to self-correct its internal knowledge based on human preferences.

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

32 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model

    Moo Jin Kim, Karl Pertsch, Siddharth Karamcheti, Ted Xiao, Ashwin Balakrishna, Suraj Nair, Rafael Rafailov , Ethan Paul Foster, Grace Lam, Pannag Sanketi, Quan Vuong, Thomas Kollar, Benjamin Burchfiel, Russ Tedrake, Dorsa Sadigh, Sergey Levine, Percy Liang, and Chelsea Finn. Openvla: An open-source vision-language-action model. CoRR, abs/2406.09246, 2024....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.09246 2024

  2. [2]

    Physical Intelligence, Kevin Black, Noah Brown, James Darpinian, Karan Dhabalia, Danny Driess, Adnan Esmail, Michael Equi, Chelsea Finn, Niccolo Fusai, Manuel Y . Galliker, Dibya Ghosh, Lachy Groom, Karol Hausman, Brian Ichter, Szymon Jakubczak, Tim Jones, Liyiming Ke, Devin LeBlanc, Sergey Levine, Adrian Li-Bell, Mohith Mothukuri, Suraj Nair, Karl Pertsc...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.16054 2025

  3. [3]

    Learning long-context diffusion policies via past-token prediction

    Marcel T orne, Andy Tang, Yuejiang Liu, and Chelsea Finn. Learning long-context diffusion policies via past-token prediction. CoRR, abs/2505.09561, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2505.09561. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv. 2505.09561

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.09561 2025

  4. [4]

    Sam2act: Integrating visual foundation model with A memory architecture for robotic manipulation

    Haoquan Fang, Markus Grotz, Wilbert Pumacay , Yi Ru Wang, Dieter Fox, Ranjay Krishna, and Jiafei Duan. Sam2act: Integrating visual foundation model with A memory architecture for robotic manipulation. In Aarti Singh, Maryam Fazel, Daniel Hsu, Simon Lacoste-Julien, Felix Berkenkamp, Tegan Maharaj, Kiri Wagstaff, and Jerry Zhu, editors, Forty-second Interna...

    2025

  5. [5]

    Scaling up memory for robotic control via experience retrieval

    Ajay Sridhar, Jennifer Pan, Satvik Sharma, and Chelsea Finn. Scaling up memory for robotic control via experience retrieval. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=1dH4ARGdwD

    2026

  6. [6]

    Roboomni: Proactive robot manipulation in omni-modal context

    Siyin Wang, Jinlan Fu, Feihong Liu, Xinzhe He, Huangxuan Wu, Junhao Shi, Kexin Huang, Zhaoye Fei, Jingjing Gong, Zuxuan Wu, et al. Roboomni: Proactive robot manipulation in omni-modal context. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.23763, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Qwen3-vl technical report

    Qwen Team. Qwen3-vl technical report. CoRR, abs/2511.21631, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2511.21631. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.21631

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21631 2025

  8. [8]

    Hi robot: Open-ended instruction following with hierarchical vision-language-action models

    Lucy Xiaoyang Shi, Brian Ichter, Michael Robert Equi, Liyiming Ke, Karl Pertsch, Quan Vuong, James Tanner, Anna Walling, Haohuan Wang, Niccolo Fusai, Adrian Li-Bell, Danny Driess, Lachy Groom, Sergey Levine, and Chelsea Finn. Hi robot: Open-ended instruction following with hierarchical vision-language-action models. In Aarti Singh, Maryam Fazel, Daniel Hs...

    2025

  9. [9]

    HAMSTER: hierarchical action models for open-world robot manipulation

    Yi Li, Yuquan Deng, Jesse Zhang, Joel Jang, Marius Memmel, Caelan Reed Garrett, Fabio Ramos, Dieter Fox, Anqi Li, Abhishek Gupta, and Ankit Goyal. HAMSTER: hierarchical action models for open-world robot manipulation. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025. OpenReview.net, 2025. URL ...

    2025

  10. [10]

    From llms to actions: Latent codes as bridges in hierarchical robot control

    Yide Shentu, Philipp Wu, Aravind Rajeswaran, and Pieter Abbeel. From llms to actions: Latent codes as bridges in hierarchical robot control. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, IROS 2024, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, October 14-18, 2024, pages 8539–8546. IEEE, 2024. doi: 10.1109/IROS58592.2024. 10801683. URL https:/...

    doi:10.1109/iros58592.2024 2024

  11. [11]

    MAP-VLA: memory-augmented prompting for vision-language-action model in robotic manipulation

    Runhao Li, Wenkai Guo, Zhenyu Wu, Changyuan Wang, Haoyuan Deng, Zhenyu Weng, Yap-Peng Tan, and Zi- wei Wang. MAP-VLA: memory-augmented prompting for vision-language-action model in robotic manipulation. CoRR, abs/2511.09516, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2511.09516. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2511.09516. 13

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.09516 2025

  12. [12]

    Vision- dialog navigation by exploring cross-modal memory

    Yi Zhu, Fengda Zhu, Zhaohuan Zhan, Bingqian Lin, Jianbin Jiao, Xiaojun Chang, and Xiaodan Liang. Vision- dialog navigation by exploring cross-modal memory. CoRR, abs/2003.06745, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2003.06745

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  13. [13]

    MemoryVLA: Perceptual-cognitive memory in vision-language-action models for robotic manip- ulation

    Hao Shi, Bin Xie, Yingfei Liu, Lin Sun, Fengrong Liu, Tiancai Wang, Erjin Zhou, Haoqiang Fan, Xiangyu Zhang, and Gao Huang. MemoryVLA: Perceptual-cognitive memory in vision-language-action models for robotic manip- ulation. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026. URL https://openreview. net/forum?id=54U3XHf7qq

    2026

  14. [14]

    Tracevla: Visual trace prompting enhances spatial-temporal awareness for generalist robotic policies

    Ruijie Zheng, Yongyuan Liang, Shuaiyi Huang, Jianfeng Gao, Hal Daumé III, Andrey Kolobov , Furong Huang, and Jianwei Yang. Tracevla: Visual trace prompting enhances spatial-temporal awareness for generalist robotic policies. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025. OpenReview.net, 2025...

    2025

  15. [15]

    JARVIS-1: open-world multi-task agents with memory- augmented multimodal language models

    Zihao Wang, Shaofei Cai, Anji Liu, Yonggang Jin, Jinbing Hou, Bowei Zhang, Haowei Lin, Zhaofeng He, Zilong Zheng, Yaodong Yang, Xiaojian Ma, and Yitao Liang. JARVIS-1: open-world multi-task agents with memory- augmented multimodal language models. CoRR, abs/2311.05997, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2311.05997. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.05997

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.05997 2023

  16. [16]

    Optimus-1: Hybrid multi- modal memory empowered agents excel in long-horizon tasks

    Zaijing Li, Yuquan Xie, Rui Shao, Gongwei Chen, Dongmei Jiang, and Liqiang Nie. Optimus-1: Hybrid multi- modal memory empowered agents excel in long-horizon tasks. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=XXOMCwZ6by

    2024

  17. [17]

    Describe, explain, plan and select: Interactive planning with LLMs enables open-world multi-task agents

    Zihao Wang, Shaofei Cai, Guanzhou Chen, Anji Liu, Xiaojian Ma, and Yitao Liang. Describe, explain, plan and select: Interactive planning with LLMs enables open-world multi-task agents. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=KtvPdGb31Z

    2023

  18. [18]

    Memverse: Multimodal memory for lifelong learning agents

    Junming Liu, Yifei Sun, Weihua Cheng, Haodong Lei, Yirong Chen, Licheng Wen, Xuemeng Yang, Daocheng Fu, Pinlong Cai, Nianchen Deng, Yi Yu, Shuyue Hu, Botian Shi, and Ding Wang. Memverse: Multimodal memory for lifelong learning agents. CoRR, abs/2512.03627, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2512.03627. URL https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2512.03627

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.03627 2025

  19. [19]

    Patil, Kevin Lin, Sarah Wooders, and Joseph E

    Charles Packer, Vivian Fang, Shishir G. Patil, Kevin Lin, Sarah Wooders, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. Memgpt: T owards llms as operating systems. CoRR, abs/2310.08560, 2023. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2310.08560. URL https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2310.08560

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.08560 2023

  20. [20]

    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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    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. In The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2026. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=FiM0M8gcct

    2026

  22. [22]

    Memory-r1: Enhancing large language model agents to manage and utilize memories via reinforcement learning

    Sikuan Yan, Xiufeng Yang, Zuchao Huang, Ercong Nie, Zifeng Ding, Zonggen Li, Xiaowen Ma, Hinrich Schütze, Volker Tresp, and Yunpu Ma. Memory-r1: Enhancing large language model agents to manage and utilize memories via reinforcement learning. CoRR, abs/2508.19828, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2508.19828. URL https://doi.org/ 10.48550/arXiv.2508.19828

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.19828 2025

  23. [23]

    Seeing, listening, remem- bering, and reasoning: A multimodal agent with long-term memory

    Lin Long, Yichen He, Wentao Ye, Yiyuan Pan, Yuan Lin, Hang Li, Junbo Zhao, and Wei Li. Seeing, listening, remem- bering, and reasoning: A multimodal agent with long-term memory. In The Fourteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=PMz29A7Muq

    2026

  24. [24]

    Worldmm: Dynamic multimodal memory agent for long video reasoning

    Woongyeong Yeo, Kangsan Kim, Jaehong Yoon, and Sung Ju Hwang. Worldmm: Dynamic multimodal memory agent for long video reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 25599–25609, June 2026

    2026

  25. [25]

    SCM: enhancing large language model with self-controlled memory framework

    Bing Wang, Xinnian Liang, Jian Yang, Hui Huang, Zhenhe Wu, Shuangzhi Wu, Zejun Ma, and Zhoujun Li. SCM: enhancing large language model with self-controlled memory framework. In Feida Zhu, Philip S. Yu, Akiyo Nadamoto, Ee-Peng Lim, Kyuseok Shim, Wei Ding, and Bingxue Zhang, editors, Database Systems for Advanced Applications - 30th International Conference...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-95-4158-4 2025

  26. [26]

    Gpt-4o system card

    OpenAI. Gpt-4o system card. CoRR, abs/2410.21276, 2024. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2410.21276. URL https://doi. org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.21276

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.21276 2024

  27. [27]

    Alexander Khazatsky , Karl Pertsch, Suraj Nair, Ashwin Balakrishna, Sudeep Dasari, Siddharth Karamcheti, Soroush Nasiriany , Mohan Kumar Srirama, Lawrence Yunliang Chen, Kirsty Ellis, Peter David Fagan, Joey Hejna, Masha Itkina, Marion Lepert, Yecheng Jason Ma, Patrick Tree Miller, Jimmy Wu, Suneel Belkhale, Shivin Dass, Huy Ha, Arhan Jain, Abraham Lee, Y...

    2024

  28. [28]

    OBJECT TAGS: toy_duck, snack_package, left_box

  29. [29]

    LOCATION TAGS: table, shelf, inside_left_box

  30. [30]

    Tag Usage Rules: Use 2-5 tags per record

    USER_PREFERENCE TAGS: user, lily, likes, prefers. Tag Usage Rules: Use 2-5 tags per record. Update tags when object state changes. Tag Query Strat- egy: PREFER tag-based queries. Query one tag every time. # MEMORY CRUD PROTOCOL You interact with memory only via structured XML operations. (1) QUERY (READ) <operation> <type>QUERY</type> <query>search key ta...

  31. [31]

    Use when information is missing

    Inspection action: Main verb ”inspect”. Use when information is missing

  32. [32]

    # REQUIRED OUTPUT FORMAT FOR EACH TURN <summary> <!-- Concise reasoning summarizing observations and memory interaction --> </summary> <memory_operations> <!-- Turn 1: QUERY only

    Pick-and-place action: ”pick up <object> <source> and place it to <target>”. # REQUIRED OUTPUT FORMAT FOR EACH TURN <summary> <!-- Concise reasoning summarizing observations and memory interaction --> </summary> <memory_operations> <!-- Turn 1: QUERY only. Turn 2: CRUD operations. --> </memory_operations> <plan_list> <!-- Turn 1: EMPTY. Turn 2: Finalized ...