arxiv: 2604.20006 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-21 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: unknown

From Recall to Forgetting: Benchmarking Long-Term Memory for Personalized Agents

Md Nayem Uddin , Kumar Shubham , Eduardo Blanco , Chitta Baral , Gengyu Wang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 02:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL

keywords memoryagentslong-termpersonalizedbenchmarkconversationsevaluationfrequent

0 comments

The pith

Memora benchmark and FAMA metric show that LLMs and memory agents frequently reuse invalid memories and struggle to reconcile evolving information in long-term interactions.

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

Personalized AI agents talk with users across many sessions and must remember details from earlier conversations while updating or discarding information when circumstances change. Existing tests mostly check whether agents can retrieve old facts, which misses whether they consolidate memory properly or handle updates that make prior facts wrong. The authors created Memora, a benchmark built from extended user conversations spanning weeks or months. It evaluates three memory-related abilities: recalling past information, reasoning with that memory, and making recommendations based on it. Data quality was checked with automated grounding procedures and human review. They also defined Forgetting-Aware Memory Accuracy (FAMA), a scoring method that reduces credit when agents rely on information that has become invalid. Tests on four large language models and six memory-enhanced agents found frequent reuse of outdated or contradicted memories and difficulty integrating new facts with old ones. Adding dedicated memory components produced only small gains, indicating that current approaches to long-term memory remain limited.

Core claim

Evaluations of four LLMs and six memory agents reveal frequent reuse of invalid memories and failures to reconcile evolving memories. Memory agents offer marginal improvements, exposing shortcomings in long-term memory for personalized agents.

Load-bearing premise

That the synthetic long-term conversations and automated memory-grounding checks plus human evaluation in Memora sufficiently represent real-world user-agent interactions and the dynamics of memory invalidation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20006 by Chitta Baral, Eduardo Blanco, Gengyu Wang, Kumar Shubham, Md Nayem Uddin.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Overview of the Memora construction pipeline. The process begins with structured seed data (persona [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FAMA scores for remembering, recommending, and reasoning tasks. For each task, we report the top three approaches. Points denote mean per-question FAMA scores, and error bars indicate variability across temporal durations. Weekly Monthly Quarterly 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 FAMA Score LangMem Nemori MemoryOS MemoBase A-Mem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FAMA scores for weekly, monthly, and quar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Distribution of the number of automatic evalu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Distribution of agreement patterns among the three LLM judges for weekly, monthly, and quarterly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Pairwise Cohen’s κ scores between OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google judges for weekly, monthly, and quarterly evaluations. All judge pairs achieve κ values above 0.80 across temporal settings, corresponding to near-perfect agreement. High κ values persist despite increasing task difficulty at longer time scales, demonstrating strong alignment and low variance among heterogeneous LLM judges. the system fall bac… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Personalized agents that interact with users over long periods must maintain persistent memory across sessions and update it as circumstances change. However, existing benchmarks predominantly frame long-term memory evaluation as fact retrieval from past conversations, providing limited insight into agents' ability to consolidate memory over time or handle frequent knowledge updates. We introduce Memora, a long-term memory benchmark spanning weeks to months long user conversations. The benchmark evaluates three memory-grounded tasks: remembering, reasoning, and recommending. To ensure data quality, we employ automated memory-grounding checks and human evaluation. We further introduce Forgetting-Aware Memory Accuracy (FAMA), a metric that penalizes reliance on obsolete or invalidated memory when evaluating long-term memory. Evaluations of four LLMs and six memory agents reveal frequent reuse of invalid memories and failures to reconcile evolving memories. Memory agents offer marginal improvements, exposing shortcomings in long-term memory for personalized agents.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Memora adds a forgetting-aware benchmark for long-term agent memory but the synthetic data makes the reported failure rates hard to read as clear evidence of agent shortcomings.

read the letter

The paper introduces Memora, a benchmark built around multi-week synthetic conversations, and pairs it with FAMA, a metric that deducts for using invalidated memories. It tests three tasks—remembering, reasoning, and recommending—and runs four LLMs plus six memory agents through them. The headline finding is that agents often reuse obsolete information and show only marginal gains from dedicated memory modules. That direction is reasonable; most existing memory benchmarks stop at fact retrieval and ignore when facts stop being true. Defining a penalty for obsolete use and checking data with automated grounding plus human review are concrete steps forward. The results, if the numbers and error analysis hold, give a practical signal that current approaches still fall short on consolidation over time. The soft spot is the data source. Everything rests on synthetically generated dialogues. If the generation process tends to insert abrupt or detectable contradictions, then high rates of invalid-memory reuse become partly expected rather than diagnostic. The abstract does not report how invalidations were distributed or how often they arise in the raw data, so it is difficult to judge whether the failures generalize beyond this testbed. This work is aimed at researchers building or evaluating persistent memory for user-facing agents. A reader in that area would get concrete task definitions and a metric to adapt or critique. It deserves peer review so referees can examine the conversation generation pipeline and the exact FAMA formulation in detail.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Memora, a benchmark for long-term memory in personalized agents consisting of synthetic conversations spanning weeks to months. It defines three memory-grounded tasks (remembering, reasoning, recommending), employs automated grounding checks plus human review for data quality, and proposes the Forgetting-Aware Memory Accuracy (FAMA) metric that penalizes reliance on obsolete memories. Evaluations across four LLMs and six memory agents report frequent reuse of invalid memories, failures to reconcile evolving information, and only marginal gains from memory agents.

Significance. If the findings hold under more naturalistic conditions, Memora and FAMA would provide a valuable shift from static fact-retrieval benchmarks toward evaluating dynamic memory consolidation and invalidation, directly relevant to building reliable personalized agents. The empirical focus on forgetting mechanisms and the introduction of a penalizing metric are constructive contributions to the evaluation literature.

major comments (2)

[Memora benchmark and data generation] Memora dataset construction: The headline result of frequent invalid-memory reuse is measured on synthetically generated long-term dialogues. If the generation process (or the definition of invalidation) systematically produces more abrupt or detectable contradictions than occur in real multi-week user interactions, the observed failure modes and FAMA penalties become partly tautological rather than diagnostic of agent shortcomings.
[Experiments and results] Evaluation protocol and results: The abstract claims that evaluations reveal specific failures and that data quality was ensured via checks and human review, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative results, error analysis, per-task breakdowns, or statistical significance tests. This prevents verification that the central claims about marginal improvements and frequent reuse are supported by the data.

minor comments (3)

[Memora benchmark] Clarify the precise operational definition of 'invalidated memory' and the exact procedure for the automated memory-grounding checks, including any thresholds or rules used.
[Memory agents] Add a table or figure summarizing the six memory agents, their architectures, and key differences to aid reproducibility.
[Related work] Expand the related-work section to explicitly contrast Memora with prior long-term memory benchmarks (e.g., those focused on single-session retrieval) and justify the choice of synthetic generation over real user logs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on Memora and FAMA. The comments highlight important considerations regarding synthetic data realism and the clarity of empirical results. We address each major comment below and indicate planned revisions.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Memora benchmark and data generation] Memora dataset construction: The headline result of frequent invalid-memory reuse is measured on synthetically generated long-term dialogues. If the generation process (or the definition of invalidation) systematically produces more abrupt or detectable contradictions than occur in real multi-week user interactions, the observed failure modes and FAMA penalties become partly tautological rather than diagnostic of agent shortcomings.

Authors: We acknowledge the concern that synthetic dialogues may contain more abrupt or detectable contradictions than naturalistic multi-week interactions. Our generation pipeline was explicitly designed to mitigate this by enforcing gradual information evolution, contextual consistency across sessions, and realistic user intent shifts over simulated time spans (weeks to months). We employed a multi-stage LLM-assisted process with automated consistency checks to avoid artificial abruptness. Nevertheless, we agree this remains a limitation of any controlled benchmark. In the revision we will expand the data generation section with additional examples of gradual update patterns and add a dedicated limitations paragraph comparing synthetic vs. real-world invalidation dynamics. revision: partial
Referee: [Experiments and results] Evaluation protocol and results: The abstract claims that evaluations reveal specific failures and that data quality was ensured via checks and human review, yet the manuscript provides no quantitative results, error analysis, per-task breakdowns, or statistical significance tests. This prevents verification that the central claims about marginal improvements and frequent reuse are supported by the data.

Authors: We appreciate the referee drawing attention to presentation clarity. The full manuscript reports quantitative results in Section 4, including overall and per-task FAMA scores for the four LLMs and six memory agents (Tables 2–3), an error analysis of invalid-memory reuse cases (Section 4.2), and statistical significance via paired t-tests (p < 0.05 for marginal gains). Data quality is quantified via grounding-check pass rates and human agreement scores (Section 3.3). We recognize these elements may not have been sufficiently prominent or detailed for easy verification. In the revised version we will expand the results section with additional per-task breakdowns, a dedicated error-analysis table, and explicit reporting of all statistical tests. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical benchmark with no derivation chain or circular reductions

full rationale

The paper introduces the Memora benchmark and FAMA metric through description of synthetic conversation generation, automated checks, human evaluation, and direct performance measurements on four LLMs and six memory agents. No mathematical derivations, equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or uniqueness theorems appear. Central claims rest on reported evaluation outcomes rather than any step that reduces to its own inputs by construction. No self-citations function as load-bearing premises for the results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Ledger is necessarily incomplete because only the abstract is available; it records only elements explicitly stated.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The three tasks (remembering, reasoning, recommending) and the constructed conversations adequately probe long-term memory capabilities including updates and forgetting.
Assumed in the design of Memora and the choice of evaluation tasks.
domain assumption Automated memory-grounding checks combined with human evaluation produce high-quality benchmark data.
Stated as the method used to ensure data quality.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5461 in / 1350 out tokens · 54363 ms · 2026-05-10T02:06:13.281417+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

MedMemoryBench: Benchmarking Agent Memory in Personalized Healthcare
cs.AI 2026-05 conditional novelty 8.0

MedMemoryBench supplies a 2,000-session synthetic medical trajectory dataset and an evaluate-while-constructing streaming protocol to expose memory saturation and reasoning failures in current agent architectures for ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 6 internal anchors

[1]

Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memory

Mem0: Building production-ready ai agents with scalable long-term memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19413. Kaustubh Deshpande, Ved Sirdeshmukh, Johannes Bap- tist Mols, Lifeng Jin, Ed-Yeremai Hernandez- Cardona, Dean Lee, Jeremy Kritz, Willow E. Pri- mack, Summer Yue, and Chen Xing

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[2]

In Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: ACL 2025, pages 18632–18702, Vienna, Austria

Multi- Challenge: A realistic multi-turn conversation eval- uation benchmark challenging to frontier LLMs. In Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: ACL 2025, pages 18632–18702, Vienna, Austria. Association for Computational Linguistics. Yiming Du, Hongru Wang, Zhengyi Zhao, Bin Liang, Baojun Wang, Wanjun Zhong, Zezhong Wang, and Kam...

2025
[3]

InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, pages 23281–23298, Suzhou, China

Context length alone hurts LLM perfor- mance despite perfect retrieval. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, pages 23281–23298, Suzhou, China. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. K Anders Ericsson and Walter Kintsch

2025
[4]

InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1049–1065, Toronto, Canada

To- wards reasoning in large language models: A survey. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 1049–1065, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Bowen Jiang, Zhuoqun Hao, Young-Min Cho, Bryan Li, Yuan Yuan, Sihao Chen, Lyle Ungar, Camillo J Taylor, and Dan Roth

2023
[5]

Know me, respond to me: Benchmarking llms for dynamic user profiling and personalized responses at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14225, 2025

Know me, respond to me: Benchmarking llms for dynamic user profiling and personalized responses at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14225. Natalie A Jones, Helen Ross, Timothy Lynam, Pascal Perez, and Anne Leitch

work page arXiv
[6]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12599, 2024

Controllable text generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.12599. Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paran- jape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang

work page arXiv
[7]

A Survey of Context Engineering for Large Language Models

A survey of con- text engineering for large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.13334. Jiayan Nan, Wenquan Ma, Wenlong Wu, and Yize Chen

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[8]

What Deserves Memory: Adaptive Memory Distillation for LLM Agents

Nemori: Self-organizing agent mem- ory inspired by cognitive science.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.03341. Charles Packer, Vivian Fang, Shishir_G Patil, Kevin Lin, Sarah Wooders, and Joseph_E Gonzalez

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv
[9]

LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory

Longmemeval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interac- tive memory.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.10813. Yaxiong Wu, Sheng Liang, Chen Zhang, Yichao Wang, Yongyue Zhang, Huifeng Guo, Ruiming Tang, and Yong Liu

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[10]

WizardLM: Empowering large pre-trained language models to follow complex instructions

Wizardlm: Empowering large lan- guage models to follow complex instructions.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.12244. Jing Xu, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2022a. Be- yond goldfish memory: Long-term open-domain con- versation. InProceedings of the 60th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 5180–5197, Du...

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv
[11]

A-MEM: Agentic Memory for LLM Agents

A-mem: Agentic memory for llm agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12110. Xinchao Xu, Zhibin Gou, Wenquan Wu, Zheng-Yu Niu, Hua Wu, Haifeng Wang, and Shihang Wang. 2022b. Long time no see! open-domain conversation with long-term persona memory. InFindings of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 2639–2650, Dublin, Ireland. Associati...

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2022
[12]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20163 , year=

The rise of ai com- panions: How human-chatbot relationships influence well-being. Zeyu Zhang, Quanyu Dai, Luyu Chen, Zeren Jiang, Rui Li, Jieming Zhu, Xu Chen, Yi Xie, Zhenhua Dong, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024b. Memsim: A bayesian sim- ulator for evaluating memory of llm-based personal assistants.arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.20163. Wanjun Zhong, Lianghong Guo, Qi...

work page arXiv
[13]

Yes” (3–0) • 25 Majority “Yes

Across weekly, monthly, and quarterly evaluations,κ val- ues consistently exceed 0.80 for all judge pairs. Ac- cording to standard interpretations, κ values above 0.80 indicate near-perfect agreement. Together, these results demonstrate that the multi-judge evaluation protocol produces stable and consistent judgments even under the high con- solidation an...

1945
[14]

The user has successfully met or exceeded their daily goal in 100% of the recorded sessions in this series

Following this, the user logged several high-activity sessions: 10,254 (S2), 12,301 (S26), 9,612 (S48), 7,916 (S73), 8,578 (S95), 13,143 (S113), and 10,441 (S130). The user has successfully met or exceeded their daily goal in 100% of the recorded sessions in this series. E Additional Experimental Details This appendix provides additional implementation de...

2025