pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.12213 · v2 · pith:PUTD67ZFnew · submitted 2026-05-12 · 💻 cs.AI

Goal-Oriented Reasoning for RAG-based Memory in Conversational Agentic LLM Systems

Jiazhou Liang , Armin Toroghi , Yifan Simon Liu , Faeze Moradi Kalarde , Liam Gallagher , Scott Sanner This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 22:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords Goal-MemRAG-based memoryconversational agentsgoal-oriented reasoningbackward chainingNatural Language Logicmulti-hop reasoningLLM agents
0
0 comments X

The pith

Goal-Mem retrieves memory by backward chaining from user goals instead of semantic similarity to utterances.

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

Current RAG systems for conversational agents retrieve memory by matching the user's words directly, which often misses the intermediate facts needed for complex questions. Goal-Mem instead treats the user utterance as a goal and works backward, breaking it into smaller subgoals and fetching only the memory that fills each gap. This process is formalized using Natural Language Logic, which keeps the reasoning steps verifiable while staying in everyday language. Experiments on two datasets show this approach beats nine other memory methods, especially when questions need several steps of inference. The improvement matters because it lets agents maintain coherent long conversations without losing track of what they need to know.

Core claim

Goal-Mem performs explicit backward chaining from the user's utterance as a goal. It decomposes each goal into atomic subgoals, retrieves targeted memory for each, and iteratively identifies missing information when subgoals cannot be resolved, all formalized in Natural Language Logic.

What carries the argument

Goal-Mem framework that decomposes user goals into atomic subgoals for targeted memory retrieval and formalizes the process in Natural Language Logic.

If this is right

  • Goal-Mem improves performance particularly on tasks requiring multi-hop reasoning and implicit inference.
  • The method enables more coherent agent behavior over long conversational horizons by retrieving relevant evidence.
  • Natural Language Logic supplies both the verifiability of first-order logic and the expressivity of natural language for the reasoning steps.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The subgoal decomposition could be applied to planning or standalone question-answering systems outside conversation.
  • Evaluating the approach on larger models or alternate memory stores would test whether gains hold at scale.
  • Iterative gap identification may reduce reliance on ungrounded generation by forcing explicit memory checks.

Load-bearing premise

Existing methods retrieve memory based on semantic similarity to the raw user utterance, which lacks explicit reasoning about missing intermediate facts and often returns evidence that is irrelevant or insufficient.

What would settle it

Run Goal-Mem against the nine baselines on the same multi-hop reasoning dataset and check whether Goal-Mem shows no consistent accuracy gain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12213 by Armin Toroghi, Faeze Moradi Kalarde, Jiazhou Liang, Liam Gallagher, Scott Sanner, Yifan Simon Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of retrieval from external memory: utterance-based semantic retrieval ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of GOAL-MEM. The framework starts from the user utterance and goal initial￾ization (top), decomposes the goal into NL-Logic subgoals for memory retrieval from a selected backbone (middle), and checks whether the retrieved memory grounds all subgoals through unifica￾tion. If not, it enters the depth loop (middle), identifying new subgoals with targeted retrieval until all variables have been substi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: LLM accuracy by question type on LoCoMo with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Accuracy vs. Dmax (left two) and Bmax (right two). Depth yields steady gains, particularly on weaker backbones; breadth saturates after a single decomposition. References [1] Emre Can Acikgoz, Jeremiah Greer, Akul Datta, Ze Yang, William Zeng, Oussama Elachqar, Emmanouil Koukoumidis, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, and Gokhan Tur. Can a single model mas￾ter both multi-turn conversations and tool use? CoALM: A unified c… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Empirical distributions of realized search statistics in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

LLM-based conversational AI agents struggle to maintain coherent behavior over long horizons due to limited context. While RAG-based approaches are increasingly adopted to overcome this limitation by storing interactions in external memory modules and performing retrieval from them, their effectiveness in answering challenging questions (e.g., multi-hop, commonsense) ultimately depends on the agent's ability to reason over the retrieved information. However, existing methods typically retrieve memory based on semantic similarity to the raw user utterance, which lacks explicit reasoning about missing intermediate facts and often returns evidence that is irrelevant or insufficient for grounded reasoning. In this work, we introduce Goal-Mem, a goal-oriented reasoning framework for RAG-based agentic memory that performs explicit backward chaining from the user's utterance as a goal. Rather than progressively expanding from retrieved context, Goal-Mem decomposes each goal into atomic subgoals, performs targeted memory retrieval to satisfy each subgoal, and iteratively identifies what information from memory should be retrieved when intermediate goals cannot be resolved. We formalize this process in Natural Language Logic, a logical system that combines the verifiability of reasoning provided by FOL with the expressivity of natural language. Through extensive experiments on two datasets and comparing to nine strong memory baselines, we show that Goal-Mem consistently improves performance, particularly on tasks requiring multi-hop reasoning and implicit inference.

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.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Goal-Mem, a goal-oriented reasoning framework for RAG-based memory in conversational LLM agents. It performs explicit backward chaining from the user utterance as a goal, decomposes goals into atomic subgoals, retrieves targeted memory to satisfy each, and iteratively resolves intermediate goals. The process is formalized in Natural Language Logic (combining FOL verifiability with natural language expressivity). Experiments on two datasets against nine memory baselines report consistent performance improvements, especially on multi-hop reasoning and implicit inference tasks.

Significance. If the results hold, Goal-Mem could meaningfully advance long-horizon conversational agents by shifting retrieval from raw semantic similarity to explicit goal decomposition and missing-fact reasoning. The Natural Language Logic formalization is a potential strength for verifiable yet expressive reasoning steps.

minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract references 'two datasets' and 'nine strong memory baselines' but provides no names, sizes, or task characteristics; this makes it impossible to assess whether the reported gains are on standard benchmarks or appropriately challenging ones.
  2. No quantitative results, ablation studies, or statistical significance tests are described, preventing evaluation of effect sizes or whether improvements are robust.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their summary of Goal-Mem and for noting its potential significance in advancing goal-oriented retrieval for long-horizon agents. The recommendation is listed as uncertain, yet the report contains no enumerated major comments. We therefore provide no point-by-point responses below and stand ready to address any specific concerns the referee may wish to raise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained

full rationale

The abstract and available description present Goal-Mem as an empirical framework with explicit backward chaining and Natural Language Logic formalization, evaluated against baselines on two datasets. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-citations as load-bearing premises, or ansatzes smuggled via prior work are visible. The performance improvements are reported as experimental outcomes rather than derived by construction from inputs. Full manuscript details would be needed for deeper inspection, but nothing in the provided text reduces the central claim to a tautology or self-referential fit.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities can be extracted or evaluated from the provided information.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5782 in / 1015 out tokens · 35877 ms · 2026-06-30T22:19:32.562880+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Temporal Order Matters for Agentic Memory: Segment Trees for Long-Horizon Agents

    cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    SegTreeMem organizes agent conversation history as a temporally ordered segment tree and shows improved answer quality on long-horizon benchmarks when chronological order is preserved during insertion and retrieval.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 15 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Can a single model mas- ter both multi-turn conversations and tool use? CoALM: A unified conversational agen- tic language model

    Emre Can Acikgoz, Jeremiah Greer, Akul Datta, Ze Yang, William Zeng, Oussama Elachqar, Emmanouil Koukoumidis, Dilek Hakkani-Tür, and Gokhan Tur. Can a single model mas- ter both multi-turn conversations and tool use? CoALM: A unified conversational agen- tic language model. InProceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Ling...

  2. [2]

    doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.605

    Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.605. URL https://aclanthology.org/2025.acl-long.605/

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.605 2025

  3. [3]

    The comparison between forward and backward chaining.International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing, 5(2):106–113, 2015

    Ajlan Al-Ajlan. The comparison between forward and backward chaining.International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing, 5(2):106–113, 2015. doi: 10.7763/IJMLC. 2015.V5.492. URL https://www.ijml.org/index.php?a=show&c=index&catid=56& id=554&m=content

    work page doi:10.7763/ijmlc 2015

  4. [4]

    LongBench: A bilingual, multitask benchmark for long context understanding

    Yushi Bai, Xin Lv, Jiajie Zhang, Hongchang Lyu, Jiankai Tang, Zhidian Huang, Zhengxiao Du, Xiao Liu, Aohan Zeng, Lei Hou, Yuxiao Dong, Jie Tang, and Juanzi Li. LongBench: A bilingual, multitask benchmark for long context understanding. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages ...

    2024

  5. [5]

    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, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2504.19413

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    and Xu, Ruifeng and Wong, Kam-Fai , year=

    Yiming Du, Bingbing Wang, Yang He, Bin Liang, Baojun Wang, Zhongyang Li, Lin Gui, Jeff Z. Pan, Ruifeng Xu, and Kam-Fai Wong. MemGuide: Intent-driven memory selection for goal-oriented multi-session LLM agents.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 40(36):30584–30592, 2026. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v40i36.40313. URL https: //ojs.aaai.org/i...

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i36.40313 2026

  7. [7]

    From Local to Global: A Graph RAG Approach to Query-Focused Summarization

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Fikes and Nils J

    Richard E. Fikes and Nils J. Nilsson. STRIPS: A new approach to the application of theorem proving to problem solving.Artificial Intelligence, 2(3–4):189–208, 1971. doi: 10.1016/ 0004-3702(71)90010-5

    1971

  9. [9]

    Gemma 4 model overview, 2026

    Google AI. Gemma 4 model overview, 2026. URL https://ai.google.dev/gemma/docs/ core. Accessed: 2026-05-07

    2026

  10. [10]

    VOGUE: A Multimodal Dataset for Conversational Recommendation in Fashion

    David Guo, Minqi Sun, Yilun Jiang, Jiazhou Liang, and Scott Sanner. VOGUE: A multimodal dataset for conversational recommendation in fashion, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2510.21151. Accepted as a full paper at ACM UMAP 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    MAGMA: A Multi-Graph based Agentic Memory Architecture for AI Agents

    Dongming Jiang, Yi Li, Guanpeng Li, and Bingzhe Li. MAGMA: A multi-graph based agentic memory architecture for AI agents, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.03236. ACL 2026 Main. 10

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

    doi: 10.18653/v1/ 2024.findings-acl.348

    Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. InProceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6769–6781, Online, 2020. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/ 2...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/ 2020

  13. [13]

    LAM- BADA: Backward chaining for automated reasoning in natural language

    Mehran Kazemi, Najoung Kim, Deepti Bhatia, Xin Xu, and Deepak Ramachandran. LAM- BADA: Backward chaining for automated reasoning in natural language. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 6547–6568, Toronto, Canada, 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10. ...

    2023

  14. [14]

    Bayesian Active Learning with Gaussian Processes Guided by LLM Relevance Scoring for Dense Passage Retrieval

    Junyoung Kim, Anton Korikov, Jiazhou Liang, Justin Cui, Yifan Simon Liu, Qianfeng Wen, Mark Zhao, and Scott Sanner. Bayesian active learning with gaussian processes guided by llm relevance scoring for dense passage retrieval.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.17906, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    SymBa: Symbolic backward chaining for structured natural language reasoning

    Jinu Lee and Wonseok Hwang. SymBa: Symbolic backward chaining for structured natural language reasoning. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Amer- icas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2468–2484, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2025. Association for Compu...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.naacl-long.124 2025

  16. [16]

    Evaluating Scene-based In-Situ Item Labeling for Immersive Conversational Recommendation

    Jiazhou Liang, Yifan Simon Liu, David Guo, Minqi Sun, Yilun Jiang, and Scott Sanner. Evaluating scene-based in-situ item labeling for immersive conversational recommendation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.09698, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

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

    Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts.Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:157–173, 2024. doi: 10.1162/tacl_a_00638. URLhttps://aclanthology.org/2024.tacl-1.9/

    work page doi:10.1162/tacl_a_00638 2024

  18. [18]

    Multimodal item scoring for natural language recommendation via gaussian process regression with llm relevance judgments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22023, 2025

    Yifan Liu, Qianfeng Wen, Jiazhou Liang, Mark Zhao, Justin Cui, Anton Korikov, Armin Toroghi, Junyoung Kim, and Scott Sanner. Multimodal item scoring for natural language recommendation via gaussian process regression with llm relevance judgments.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22023, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    MA-DPR: Manifold- aware distance metrics for dense passage retrieval

    Yifan Liu, Qianfeng Wen, Mark Zhao, Jiazhou Liang, and Scott Sanner. MA-DPR: Manifold- aware distance metrics for dense passage retrieval. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 31085–31103, Suzhou, China, 2025. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1582. URL ht...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1582 2025

  20. [20]

    Semantic xpath: Structured agentic memory access for conversational ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01160, 2026

    Yifan Simon Liu, Ruifan Wu, Liam Gallagher, Jiazhou Liang, Armin Toroghi, and Scott Sanner. Semantic XPath: Structured agentic memory access for conversational AI, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.01160

    work page arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Query rewriting in retrieval- augmented large language models

    Xinbei Ma, Yeyun Gong, Pengcheng He, Hai Zhao, and Nan Duan. Query rewriting in retrieval- augmented large language models. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5303–5315, Singapore, 2023. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.322. URL https:// aclanthology.or...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.322 2023

  22. [22]

    Evaluating very long-term conversational memory of LLM agents

    Adyasha Maharana, Dong-Ho Lee, Sergey Tulyakov, Mohit Bansal, Francesco Barbieri, and Yuwei Fang. Evaluating very long-term conversational memory of LLM agents. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 13851–13870, Bangkok, Thailand, 2024. Association for Computational Linguis...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.747 2024

  23. [23]

    RAGTruth: A hallucination corpus for developing trustworthy retrieval- augmented language models

    Cheng Niu, Yuanhao Wu, Juno Zhu, Siliang Xu, KaShun Shum, Randy Zhong, Juntong Song, and Tong Zhang. RAGTruth: A hallucination corpus for developing trustworthy retrieval- augmented language models. InProceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for 11 Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 10862–10878, Bangkok, Thailand,

  24. [24]

    RAGT ruth: A Hallucination Corpus for Developing Trustworthy Retrieval-Augmented Language Models

    Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.585. URL https://aclanthology.org/2024.acl-long.585/

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.585 2024

  25. [25]

    Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano, mar 2026

    OpenAI. Introducing GPT-5.4 mini and nano, mar 2026. URL https://openai.com/index/ introducing-gpt-5-4-mini-and-nano/. Accessed: 2026-05-07

    2026

  26. [26]

    From isolated conversations to hierarchi- cal schemas: Dynamic tree memory representation for llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14052, 2024

    Alireza Rezazadeh, Zichao Li, Wei Wei, and Yujia Bao. From isolated conversations to hierarchical schemas: Dynamic tree memory representation for LLMs, 2024. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2410.14052

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    The probabilistic relevance framework: BM25 and beyond.Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, 3(4):333–389, 2009

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

    work page doi:10.1561/1500000019 2009

  28. [28]

    Russell and Peter Norvig.Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach

    Stuart J. Russell and Peter Norvig.Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995. ISBN 0131038052

    1995

  29. [29]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Re- flexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=vAElhFcKW6

    2023

  31. [31]

    SaySelf: Teaching LLMs to express confidence with self-reflective rationales

    Armin Toroghi, Willis Guo, Ali Pesaranghader, and Scott Sanner. Verifiable, debuggable, and repairable commonsense logical reasoning via LLM-based theory resolution. InProceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 6634–6652, Miami, Florida, USA, 2024. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2024 2024

  32. [32]

    Inter- leaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step ques- tions

    Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Inter- leaving retrieval with chain-of-thought reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step ques- tions. InProceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 10014–10037, Toronto, Canada, 2023. Asso- ciation for C...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.acl-long.557 2023

  33. [33]

    LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory

    Di Wu, Hongwei Wang, Wenhao Yu, Yuwei Zhang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Dong Yu. Long- MemEval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10813. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=pZiyCaVuti

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.10813 2025

  34. [34]

    From Human Memory to AI Memory: A Survey on Memory Mechanisms in the Era of LLMs

    Yaxiong Wu, Sheng Liang, Chen Zhang, Yichao Wang, Yongyue Zhang, Huifeng Guo, Ruiming Tang, and Yong Liu. From human memory to AI memory: A survey on memory mechanisms in the era of LLMs, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.15965

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    A-MEM: Agentic Memory for LLM Agents

    Wujiang Xu, Zujie Liang, Kai Mei, Hang Gao, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang. A-MEM: Agen- tic memory for LLM agents, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12110. NeurIPS 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    AdaMem: Adaptive User-Centric Memory for Long-Horizon Dialogue Agents

    Shannan Yan, Jingchen Ni, Leqi Zheng, Jiajun Zhang, Peixi Wu, Dacheng Yin, Jing Lyu, Chun Yuan, and Fengyun Rao. AdaMem: Adaptive user-centric memory for long-horizon dialogue agents, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.16496

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.03629. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=WE_vluYUL-X. 12

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.03629 2023

  38. [38]

    $\tau$-bench: A Benchmark for Tool-Agent-User Interaction in Real-World Domains

    Shunyu Yao, Noah Shinn, Pedram Razavi, and Karthik R. Narasimhan. τ-bench: A bench- mark for tool-agent-user interaction in real-world domains. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.12045. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=roNSXZpUDN

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.12045 2025

  39. [39]

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

    Zeyu Zhang, Xiaohe Bo, Chen Ma, Rui Li, Xu Chen, Quanyu Dai, Jieming Zhu, Zhenhua Dong, and Ji-Rong Wen. A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model based agents,

  40. [40]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13501

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    AMA-Bench: Evaluating Long-Horizon Memory for Agentic Applications

    Yujie Zhao, Boqin Yuan, Junbo Huang, Haocheng Yuan, Zhongming Yu, Haozhou Xu, Lanxiang Hu, Abhilash Shankarampeta, Zimeng Huang, Wentao Ni, Yuandong Tian, and Jishen Zhao. AMA-Bench: Evaluating long-horizon memory for agentic applications, 2026. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2602.22769

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    (2026, February 13)

    Wanjun Zhong, Lianghong Guo, Qiqi Gao, He Ye, and Yanlin Wang. MemoryBank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38(17):19724–19731, 2024. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v38i17.29946. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/29946. 13 A GOAL-MEMAlgorithm The workflow of the GOAL...

    work page doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i17.29946 2024

  43. [43]

    previous

    Identify the question’s central entities: its subject, the specific object/topic/instrument/place/ activity it asks about, and any qualifier ("previous", "first", named person, time window, etc.)

  44. [44]

    Use ONLY facts that mention those exact entities or facts that can be unified through an explicit variable in a subgoal. Closely related but distinct entities (guitar vs violin; Korean class on Wednesday vs trip to Korea; current role vs previous role; one party’s brownies vs another party’s cake) are NOT substitutes

  45. [45]

    Do not pick a thematically similar fact as a fallback

    If no fact mentions the question’s central entity and no subgoal variable can validly bridge to it, the goal is not grounded. Do not pick a thematically similar fact as a fallback. UNIFICATION PROCESS:

  46. [46]

    Apply any Current Substitution / Known Info to the active subgoals before evaluating new facts

  47. [47]

    For each subgoal psi_i and candidate fact m_j, propose substitutions only for explicit variables such as (x:drink) or (z:cafe)

  48. [48]

    Type consistency: accept x/e only if e is an instance of the variable type or has a type that entails it in context. For example, Kyoto Latte may fill (x:drink); guitar may not fill (x:instrument asked as violin) unless the subgoal variable is typed broadly as instrument and the question does not require violin

  49. [49]

    Reject conflicting bindings

    Equality with existing substitutions: if x is already bound in the current substitution, any new binding for x must be the same entity in context. Reject conflicting bindings

  50. [50]

    Topical similarity is not enough

    Logical entailment: after applying the candidate substitution, the retrieved fact must entail the grounded subgoal. Topical similarity is not enough

  51. [51]

    Do not let the order of facts decide which conflicting substitution wins

    Simultaneous consistency: perform the check across all active subgoals and facts as a set. Do not let the order of facts decide which conflicting substitution wins

  52. [52]

    I don’t know

    Conflict handling: if facts ground the same required variable with incompatible values and the conflict cannot be resolved from the facts alone, answer "I don’t know". ANSWER RULES: - Your answer must be based on the provided facts and general rules/subgoals. State the used facts and rules explicitly in your reasoning. - Indicate the number of facts and g...

    2023

  53. [53]

    Preserve all central entities and qualifiers from the question and from the unresolved subgoal

    Target the exact unresolved subgoal. Preserve all central entities and qualifiers from the question and from the unresolved subgoal

  54. [54]

    (x:drink) served in (z:cafe visited last week)

    Do not merely paraphrase the unresolved subgoal. Generate an antecedent that would make the unresolved part checkable. Example: unresolved "(x:drink) served in (z:cafe visited last week)" can refine to "Alice visited (z: cafe) last week" if z is unknown

  55. [55]

    Reuse the same variable names when the refined subgoal is intended to ground the same variable

    Keep unresolved variables explicit as (x:type), (y:type), etc. Reuse the same variable names when the refined subgoal is intended to ground the same variable

  56. [56]

    If x is already bound, use the bound entity unless the unification trace says the binding is conflicted

    Respect existing substitutions. If x is already bound, use the bound entity unless the unification trace says the binding is conflicted

  57. [57]

    Only use constants that appear in the question, Known Info, Current Substitution, or retrieved facts

    Do not invent constants. Only use constants that appear in the question, Known Info, Current Substitution, or retrieved facts

  58. [58]

    If Previously Retrieved Missing Info or Previously Refined Subgoals are provided, the new refinement MUST take a different angle

    Avoid repeated refinement. If Previously Retrieved Missing Info or Previously Refined Subgoals are provided, the new refinement MUST take a different angle

  59. [59]

    none"> Retrieval Queries: - <natural-language query corresponding to refined subgoal 1, or

    If no useful new refinement is possible, set Refinement Status to stop and explain why. Relation Type selection: - temporal: the missing evidence is about when something happened or the sequence of events. - causal: the missing evidence is about why something happened, what caused it, or what resulted from it. - semantic: the missing evidence is about the...

    2023