Recent conversational memory systems invest heavily in LLM-based structuring at ingestion time and learned retrieval policies at query time. We show that neither is necessary. SmartSearch retrieves from raw, unstructured conversation history using a fully deterministic pipeline: NER-weighted substring matching for recall, rule-based entity discovery for multi-hop expansion, and a CrossEncoder+ColBERT rank fusion stage -- the only learned component -- running on CPU in ~650ms. Oracle analysis on two benchmarks identifies a compilation bottleneck: retrieval recall reaches 98.6%, but without intelligent ranking only 22.5% of gold evidence survives truncation to the token budget. With score-adaptive truncation and no per-dataset tuning, SmartSearch achieves 93.5% on LoCoMo and 88.4% on LongMemEval-S, exceeding all known memory systems under the same evaluation protocol on both benchmarks while using 8.5x fewer tokens than full-context baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: SmartSearch pipeline. Stages 1–2 are fully deterministic; Stage 3 (Rank) is the only learned component, running two models in parallel on CPU. Dashed arrow: optional multi-hop entity expansion (3% of queries).
Property
LoCoMo
LME-S
Hop distribution (oracle, LoCoMo only)
Single-hop
97.0%
—
Two-hop
2.8%
—
Three-hop
0.2%
—
Tool selection (oracle, LoCoMo only)
Resolved by grep
98.9%
—
Table 1: Oracle trace analysis (LoCoMo, 1,317 traces) and ranking effect on both benchmarks. Mean gold rank: average position of the first gold passage among grep candidates.
Stage
Indexed
Index-free
Retrieve
I n
IF n
Rank
No reranker
R0
…
CrossEncoder + RRF
R n
Truncate
Table 2: Ablation structure and naming scheme. Configurations are composites of retrieval, rank, and budget choices (e.g., I0-R5-B0 ). Section 4 tables vary one dimension and hold the others constant.
LoCoMo
LME-S
ID
Config
Acc.
Δ
Acc.
Δ
I0-R5-B1
Indexed
91.9
—
81.2
—
IF0-R4-B1
Index-free
91.0
—
78.4
—
IF1-R4-B1
+ PRF
90.9
− 0.1
84.4
+6.0
IF2-R4-B1
+ entity discovery
91.0
+0.1
79.8
+1.4
IF3-R4-B1
+ both
90.7
− 0.3
87.6
+9.2
Table 3: Query expansion ablation. Δ relative to the index-free baseline. Expansion is neutral on short conversations but strongly positive on long ones.
ID
Configuration
Acc.
Tok.
Δ
I0-R0-B1
No reranker
76.8
1,547
—
I0-R1-B1
+ MiniLM-L-12 (33M)
84.7
1,547
+7.9
I0-R1-B1 †
+ Inference prompt †
86.4
1,691
+1.7
I0-R2-B1
bge-base (278M)
88.6
3,203
+2.2
I0-R3-B1
bge-large (560M)
90.7
3,192
+2.1
I0-R4a-B1
+ ColBERT RRF
91.2
3,196
+0.5
Table 4: Ranking pipeline ablation on LoCoMo. Each row changes one factor. † Answer-prompt change, not a reranker change. Full 27-configuration table in Appendix A .
LoCoMo
LME-S
Budget
α
Tokens
Recall
Tokens
Recall
Fixed budget
1,000
—
1,458
.927
1,133
.850
2,000
—
2,967 (+104%)
.958 (+3.1%)
2,443 (+116%)
.928 (+7.8%)
3,000
—
4,495 (+208%)
.972 (+4.5%)
3,740 (+230%)
.959 (+10.9%)
4,000
—
6,038 (+314%)
.979 (+5.2%)
5,043 (+345%)
.973 (+12.3%)
Table 5: Truncation ablation (I0-R5 pipeline, simulated from offline score matrix). Top: fixed word budget; recall plateaus on LoCoMo but keeps improving on LME-S. Bottom: score-adaptive truncation with fixed budget ceiling 4,000 and top- K=60 , sweeping α ; the threshold adaptively allocates fewer tokens on short corpora and more on long ones. All deltas relative to budget 1K / α=0 baseline.
Table 6: LoCoMo accuracy (%). Results under two incompatible evaluation protocols should not be compared across groups. a Hu et al. (2026) . b Xia et al. (2026) . † Within 1.1 pp of EverMemOS despite no memory system.
System
Ovr.
KU
MS
SA
SP
SU
TR
Tok.
SmartSearch (index-free)
88.4
93.6
84.2
85.7
96.7
100.0
82.7
3,392
SmartSearch (indexed)
87.6
92.3
79.7
87.5
96.7
95.7
86.5
3,393
Memora b
87.4
97.4
78.2
78.6
83.3
98.6
89.5
∼ 2,900
EverMemOS a
83.0
89.7
73.7
85.7
93.3
97.1
77.4
2,800
MemOS a
77.8
74.3
70.7
67.9
96.7
95.7
77.4
1,400
Nemori b
74.6
79.5
55.6
92.9
86.7
90.0
72.2
∼ 4,300
Table 7: LongMemEval-S accuracy (%). All systems use gpt-4.1-mini as answer LLM and gpt-4o-mini as judge. a Hu et al. (2026) . b Xia et al. (2026) .
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
ID
Configuration
Overall
1-hop
M-hop
Temp.
Open
Tokens
Δ
Phase 1: Search & prompt ablations
Base
MiniLM-L-12, thresh= − 4, budget=2K
84.7
84.4
76.9
69.8
89.5
1,547
—
A1v1
Cumulative-score pruning (ratio=0.20)
82.4
81.2
75.7
66.7
87.2
677
− 2.3
A1v2
Score-floor pruning (score > 0)
81.2
79.4
74.8
66.7
85.9
688
− 3.6
A2
Date-aware search
85.3
86.2
77.6
70.8
89.5
1,547
+0.5
A3
Inference reasoning prompt
86.4
87.2
78.2
71.9
90.8
1,691
+1.6
Appendix
Table 8: Complete ablation results on LoCoMo (1,540 questions, gpt-4o-mini judge). Δ is change vs. baseline (84.7%). Experiments grouped by phase. Baseline: MiniLM-L-12 reranker, threshold= − 4, 2,000-word budget.
Model
Params
Gold top-62
Recovery (%)
Median rank
Latency
ms-marco-MiniLM-L-12-v2
33M
1,949
83.1
3
∼ 130 ms
mxbai-rerank-xsmall-v1
71M
1,998
85.2
3
∼ 168 ms
mxbai-rerank-base-v1
184M
2,087
89.0
2
∼ 182 ms
bge-reranker-base
278M
1,852
79.0
5
∼ 340 ms
ColBERT v2
—
1,979
84.4
4
∼ 500 ms
bge-reranker-large
560M
2,050
87.4
3
∼ 908 ms
Appendix
Table 9: Cross-encoder gold passage recovery at top-62 budget cutoff. 2,345 gold passages across 1,540 questions. Latency measured on CPU (single-threaded); in the full system, CrossEncoder and ColBERT run in parallel ( wall-clock=max(CE,ColBERT) ).
Config
Proxy Δ
Live Δ
Gap
I0-R4b-B1 (3-way RRF)
+1.8 pp
+0.4 pp
1.4 pp
I0-R4c-B1 (score fusion)
+2.7 pp
+0.2 pp
2.5 pp
I0-R5-B1 (model swap)
+1.2 pp
+1.2 pp
0.0 pp
Appendix
Table 10: Offline proxy predictions vs. live accuracy for three configurations on the I0-R3-B1 (bge-large, 560M) baseline. Proxy Δ : predicted gain from offline gold-passage simulation. Live Δ : measured accuracy change. Fusion strategies (I0-R4b-B1, I0-R4c-B1) show large proxy-live gaps; model swaps (I0-R5-B1) do not.
Conversational memory equips AI assistants to retain, update, and retrieve useful information from past interactions for coherent, personalized dialogue.
Efficient long-term conversational memory requires retrieving sufficient evidence without indiscriminately expanding the context presented to the language model. This is challenging because relevant evidence may be distributed across multiple sessions, while compression may discard details needed for answering. Different queries therefore require different forms of memory access. To capture these demands, we formulate memory access along two dimensions: discovery breadth, which controls how broadly evidence is searched, and reading fidelity, which controls whether evidence is read in compact form or recovered from the original conversation. Based on this formulation, we introduce JustMem, which stores conversation history as compact atomic memories and adapts memory access along these two dimensions to each query. Specifically, LOOKUP handles local evidence, COMPOSE broadens discovery for distributed evidence, and REPLAY increases reading fidelity for fidelity-sensitive evidence. On LoCoMo and LongMemEval-S, JustMem achieves the highest mean accuracy and retrieval recall among the compared memory systems while using substantially fewer generative-model tokens for memory construction and inference.
We describe ConvMemory v2, an opt-in token-evidence reranker that sits after the lightweight ConvMemory v1 reranker and reorders only v1's protected top-10 candidate set. v2 is a fine-tuned ms-marco-MiniLM-L-6-v2 cross-encoder (22,713,601 parameters, measured from the released checkpoint) applied to the ten (query, memory) pairs that v1 has already selected; it does not change which ten memories are returned, so Recall@10 and Hit@10 are identical to v1 by construction, not by statistical coincidence. On the LoCoMo conversational memory benchmark (5 seeds, n = 4955 test rows), v2 raises FULL MRR from v1's 0.5824 to 0.6560 (paired bootstrap +0.0734, 95% CI [+0.0645, +0.0827]) and H@1 from 0.4440 to 0.5474. v2 closes most but not all of the gap to a much more expensive full-pool cross-encoder reference (mxbai-rerank-large-v1 over the top-500, MRR 0.6688): on FULL MRR v2 sits 0.013 below mxbai_top500, but on two raw-dense-hard slices (where v1's protected top-10 has higher recall than mxbai's own top-10) v2 exceeds mxbai_top500. A four-arm load-bearing ablation shows candidate-specific memory text is the mechanism: removing, shuffling, or replacing it collapses MRR below raw dense retrieval. v2 is best understood as a standard recall-preserving cascade pattern with LoCoMo-specific fine-tuning, an explicit anti-shortcut inference contract, and disciplined load-bearing analysis; its advantage over mxbai is slice-specific rather than a general dominance claim. This report extends the v1 technical report (arXiv:2605.28062).
Taiheng Pan
School of Computing and Information Systems University of Melbourne
Large language model assistants are increasingly expected to retain and reason over information accumulated across many sessions. We introduce EngramaBench, a benchmark for long-term conversational memory built around five personas, one hundred multi-session conversations, and one hundred fifty queries spanning factual recall, cross-space integration, temporal reasoning, adversarial abstention, and emergent synthesis. We evaluate Engrama, a graph-structured memory system, against GPT-4o full-context prompting and Mem0, an open-source vector-retrieval memory system. All three use the same answering model (GPT-4o), isolating the effect of memory architecture. GPT-4o full-context achieves the highest composite score (0.6186), while Engrama scores 0.5367 globally but is the only system to score higher than full-context prompting on cross-space reasoning (0.6532 vs. 0.6291, n=30). Mem0 is cheapest but substantially weaker (0.4809). Ablations reveal that the components driving Engrama's cross-space advantage trade off against global composite score, exposing a systems-level tension between structured memory specialization and aggregate optimization.