| Ref | Dataset Used | Methodology | Limitation | Evaluation Results (Reported in Paper) |
| Hu et al. [ 10 ] | Blocksworld, Gripper, Tyreworld, Barman, Jericho | Hierarchical working memory using subgoal-based memory chunks; summarized observation replacement for selective retention | Focus limited to in-trial working memory; no cross-session long-term evaluation | Overall Results: SR 21.00 → 42.00; PR 38.61 → 62.55; Steps 26.41 → 22.61; Context usage 100% → 64.98%; Time 100% → 80.58% |
| Ming et al. [ 11 ] | Chat-based long-context dialogue tasks | Integrated Long-Short Term Memory Architecture (ILSTMA) combining systematic memory space planning with most-relevant dialogue retrieval strategy | Additional memory planning overhead; evaluated primarily in chat scenarios | Execution efficiency improved by 21.45%; answer accuracy increased to 88.4%; outperforms baseline long-term retrieval architectures |
| Kang et al. [ 12 ] | GVD; LoCoMo | Three-tier Memory Operating System (short-, mid-, long-term) with dialogue-chain FIFO updating, segmented paging, and tier-aware retrieval-generation integration | Primarily dialogue-focused; evaluation limited to conversational benchmarks | GVD (GPT-4o-mini): Acc 93.3, Corr. 91.2, Coher. 92.3 (+5.4% over best baseline). LoCoMo (GPT-4o-mini): Single-hop F1 23.2, Multi-hop F1 30.1, Temporal F1 8.18, Open-domain F1 22.39; Avg Rank (F1) 1.0; improvements up to +32.35% |
| Phadke et al. [ 13 ] | Long-context dialogue benchmarks | Four-tier hierarchical memory (Working, Summarized, Archival, Flagged) with proactive write-time truth verification, token gating, and credibility-aware retrieval | Additional verification overhead; multi-agent control stack increases computational complexity | Dialogue Benchmark: Accuracy 78.2%, Understanding 94.5%, False Memory Rate 6.8%, DAR 82.4%, CDR 41.2%. SGD Benchmark: BLEU 5.75, F1 0.654, Intent Accuracy 55.5%, FMR 10.5%, DAR 73.3%, CDR 34.2% |
| Jia et al. [ 14 ] | LOCCO (3080 dialogues, 100 users); LOCCO-L | Parameter-based memory via supervised fine-tuning; dialogue QA evaluation with trained consistency model | Generated dialogues; mainly evaluates explicit factual memory | Openchat-3.5: M1=0.455→0.05 ( −85.27% ); ChatGLM3-6B retained 48.25% after 6 periods; 20-user M1=0.420 vs 100-user M1=0.283 ; at T6 : 0.15 vs 0.033; Consistency model accuracy 98% |
| Maharana et al. [ 15 ] | LOCOMO | Very long-term conversational benchmark with persona and temporal event graphs | Dataset contribution only | Average 588.2 turns per conversation; 27.2 sessions; 16,618.1 tokens per conversation |