AI agents increasingly operate over extended time horizons, yet their ability to retain, organize, and recall multimodal experiences remains a critical bottleneck. Building effective lifelong memory requires navigating a vast design space spanning architecture, retrieval strategies, prompt engineering, and data pipelines; this space is too large and interconnected for manual exploration or traditional AutoML to explore effectively. We deploy an autonomous research pipeline to discover Omni-SimpleMem, a unified multimodal memory framework for lifelong AI agents. Starting from a naïve baseline (F1=0.117 on LoCoMo), the pipeline autonomously executes ∼50 experiments across two benchmarks, diagnosing failure modes, proposing architectural modifications, and repairing data pipeline bugs, all without human intervention in the inner loop. The resulting system achieves state-of-the-art on both benchmarks, improving F1 by +411% on LoCoMo (0.117→0.598) and +214% on Mem-Gallery (0.254→0.797) relative to the initial configurations. Critically, the most impactful discoveries are not hyperparameter adjustments: bug fixes (+175%), architectural changes (+44%), and prompt engineering (+188% on specific categories) each individually exceed the cumulative contribution of all hyperparameter tuning, demonstrating capabilities fundamentally beyond the reach of traditional AutoML. We provide a taxonomy of six discovery types and identify four properties that make multimodal memory particularly suited for autoresearch, offering guidance for applying autonomous research pipelines to other AI system domains. Code is available at this https://github.com/aiming-lab/SimpleMem.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the Discovery Process of Omni-SimpleMem . (a) Discovered architecture: multimodal inputs are filtered for novelty, compressed into MAUs, and retrieved via hybrid dense-sparse-graph search with pyramid expansion. (b) Autonomous optimization trajectory on Mem-Gallery: 39 experiments improve F1 from 0.254 to 0.793 (+214%).
Figure 2: Omni-SimpleMem architecture overview. Left: Selective ingestion filters multimodal inputs (text, image, audio, video) via modality-specific novelty detectors and creates MAUs with LLM-generated summaries and embeddings. Center: MAUs are stored in hot storage (summaries, embeddings, metadata) and cold storage (raw content), with entity extraction building a knowledge graph with typed entities and relations. Right: Retrieval combines dense (FAISS), sparse (BM25), and graph ( h -hop) search via set-union merging, then progressively expands results through a pyramid mechanism (summaries → full text → raw content) under a token budget B .
Figure 3: Optimization trajectories on LoCoMo (top, 9 iterations) and Mem-Gallery (bottom, 39 experiments across 7 phases). Solid lines denote accepted iterations; failed/reverted experiments are marked with × . The dashed red line indicates the previous SOTA. Key discoveries at each stage are annotated.
LoCoMo
Mem-Gallery
Backbone
Method
MH
SH
Tmp
Open
Adv
All
F1
EM
B
B-1
B-2
GPT-4o
MemVerse
0.260
0.157
0.196
0.192
0.944
0.365
0.505
0.330
0.270
0.440
0.355
Mem0
0.309
0.156
0.217
0.295
0.857
0.397
0.298
0.192
0.182
0.268
0.224
Claude-Mem
0.294
0.153
0.167
0.243
0.915
0.383
0.210
0.148
0.148
0.194
0.170
A-MEM
0.295
0.174
0.200
0.266
0.898
0.394
0.370
0.252
0.240
0.332
0.285
MemGPT
0.305
0.188
0.246
0.305
0.843
0.404
0.435
0.298
0.275
0.390
0.335
Table 1: Comparison across five LLM backbones on LoCoMo (left) and Mem-Gallery (right). LoCoMo columns: MH = multi-hop, SH = single-hop, Tmp = temporal, Open = open-domain, Adv = adversarial, All = overall F1. Mem-Gallery columns: F1, EM = exact match, B/B-1/B-2 = BLEU/BLEU-1/BLEU-2. Best baseline (excl. Omni-SimpleMem ) is underlined ; best overall is bold .
Component Removed
Δ F1
Rel.
w/o Pyramid Expansion
− 10.2
− 17%
w/o BM25 Hybrid
− 8.5
− 14%
w/o LLM Summarization
− 7.3
− 12%
Reduced top- k (5 vs 20)
− 4.2
− 7%
w/o Metadata Context
− 1.4
− 2%
Table 2: Component ablation on LoCoMo (mean Δ F1 × 100 across 4 backbones).
Figure 4: Throughput vs. F1. Omni-SimpleMem with 8 workers achieves 3.5 × higher throughput.
Method
q/s
Ret.
Gen.
SimpleMem
1.68
45
550
MemVerse
1.48
70
596
Mem0
1.46
18
665
Omni-SimpleMem (w=1)
1.05
118
846
Omni-SimpleMem (w=8)
5.81
461
821
Ret./Gen. in milliseconds.
Table 3: Latency breakdown.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Component
Parameter
Value
Visual Ingestion
CLIP threshold τhigh
0.9
CLIP threshold τlow
0.7
Frame buffer size
3
Audio Ingestion
VAD threshold
0.5
Text Ingestion
Jaccard threshold τdup
0.8
Entity Resolution
Merge threshold τres
0.85
Appendix
Table 4: Hyperparameter specification of Omni-SimpleMem .
Parameter
LoCoMo
Mem-Gallery
Embedding
text-emb-3-large
MiniLM-L6-v2
Embedding dim
3072
384
top- k
20–30
20–40 †
Token budget
6,000
2K–8K †
Per-doc memory
No
Yes
System prompt
Yes
Yes
Appendix
Table 5: Per-benchmark configurations discovered by the autonomous pipeline ( † varies per question category).
Iter
Key Discovery
F1
Δ
Type
0
Naïve baseline
0.117
—
—
1
JSON response_format missing
0.322
+175%
Bug fix
2
BM25 hybrid
0.464
+44%
Architecture
3
Anti-hallucination prompting
0.516
+11%
Prompt
4b
Evaluation format alignment
0.543
+5%
Format
5
MAU timestamp correction
0.580
+7%
Data repair
Appendix
Table 6: Optimization trajectory on LoCoMo. The pipeline autonomously discovers 7 successive improvements and correctly reverts 2 failed experiments.
Phase
Focus
F1 Range
Δ
Key Discovery
1
Environment setup
0.254 → 0.353
+39%
LLM upgrade + local embedding
2
Architecture
0.353 → 0.690
+96%
Full-text retrieval + image BM25
3
Fine-tuning
0.690 → 0.717
+4%
Constraint position sensitivity
4
Scale validation
0.717 → 0.726
+1%
Data completeness > algorithms
5
Exact citation
0.726 → 0.771
+6%
BM25 tokenization fix (+0.018)
6
Visual reasoning
0.771 → 0.789
+2%
Image catalog + context
Appendix
Table 7: Optimization trajectory on Mem-Gallery (39 experiments, 7 phases). Each phase represents a qualitative shift in the pipeline’s optimization strategy.
Iter
Cat1 (MH)
Cat2 (T)
Cat3 (O)
Cat4 (SH)
Cat5 (A)
Baseline
0.093
0.047
0.116
0.219
0.000
Iter 1
0.206
0.117
0.229
0.381
0.447
Iter 2
0.292
0.117
0.282
0.418
1.000
Iter 3
0.351
0.335
0.346
0.444
1.000
Iter 4b
0.389
0.309
0.382
0.466
1.000
Iter 5
0.398
0.487
0.388
0.445
1.000
Appendix
Table 8: LoCoMo per-category F1 across iterations (conv-26, 199 QA pairs).
Long-term memory is essential for LLM agents that operate across multiple sessions, yet existing memory systems treat retrieval infrastructure as fixed: stored content evolves while scoring functions, fusion strategies, and answer-generation policies remain frozen at deployment. We argue that truly adaptive memory requires co-evolution at two levels: the stored knowledge and the retrieval mechanism that queries it. We present EvolveMem, a self-evolving memory architecture that exposes its full retrieval configuration as a structured action space optimized by an LLM-powered diagnosis module. In each evolution round, the module reads per-question failure logs, identifies root causes, and proposes targeted configuration adjustments; a guarded meta-analyzer applies them with automatic revert-on-regression and explore-on-stagnation safeguards. This closed-loop self-evolution realizes an AutoResearch process: the system autonomously conducts iterative research cycles on its own architecture, replacing manual configuration tuning. Starting from a minimal baseline, the process converges autonomously, discovering effective retrieval strategies including entirely new configuration dimensions not present in the original action space. On LoCoMo, EvolveMem outperforms the strongest baseline by 25.7% relative and achieves a 78.0% relative improvement over the minimal baseline. On MemBench, EvolveMem exceeds the strongest baseline by 18.9% relative. Evolved configurations transfer across benchmarks with positive rather than catastrophic transfer, indicating that the self-evolution process captures universal retrieval principles rather than benchmark-specific heuristics. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/SimpleMem.
Multimodal large language models are increasingly deployed as long-horizon agents, where memory must do more than recall: it must track an evolving world, revise what has gone stale, and surface the right evidence at decision time. Existing benchmarks measure recall over static dialogue, collapse memory into a single end-of-task accuracy, and reduce visual observations to captions, leaving us unable to localize failures to writing, maintenance, retrieval, or use. The rise of agent harnesses that author their own memory sharpens this gap, since we have no principled way to compare hand-designed pipelines with self-managing alternatives. To close these gaps, we formulate multimodal agent memory as an Action-World Interaction Loop with an observable four-stage lifecycle, and instantiate it in WorldMemArena: 400 multi-session multimodal tasks spanning Lifelong Evolution (evolving personal and task states) and Agentic Execution (memory from real observations, actions, and feedback), annotated with gold memory points, updates, distractors, and evidence chains for stage-level diagnosis. This enables the first head-to-head comparison of long-context, manually designed (RAG and external memory systems), and harness-based memory agents. Results show that: (1) better memory writing and storage do not guarantee better performance; (2) multimodal memory still struggles to fully use visual evidence; (3) systems are unstable across domains and degrade on realistic agentic trajectories; and (4) harness memory is more flexible but remains costly and less reliable.
Chengzhi Liu, Yuzhe Yang, Sophia Xiao Pu +14
University of California, Santa Barbara · Johns Hopkins University · Carnegie Mellon University +3
Recent memory agents improve LLMs by extracting experiences and conversation history into an external storage. This enables low-overhead context assembly and online memory update without expensive LLM training. However, existing solutions remain passive and reactive; memory growth is bounded by information that happens to be available, while memory agents seldom seek external inputs in uncertainties. We propose autonomous memory agents that actively acquire, validate, and curate knowledge at a minimum cost. U-Mem materializes this idea via (i) a cost-aware knowledge-extraction cascade that escalates from cheap self/teacher signals to tool-verified research and, only when needed, expert feedback, and (ii) semantic-aware Thompson sampling to balance exploration and exploitation over memories and mitigate cold-start bias. On both verifiable and non-verifiable benchmarks, U-Mem consistently beats prior memory baselines and can surpass RL-based optimization, improving HotpotQA (Qwen2.5-7B) by 14.6 points and AIME25 (Gemini-2.5-flash) by 7.33 points.