Memory emerges as the core module in the large language model (LLM)-based agents for long-horizon complex tasks (e.g., multi-turn dialogue, game playing, scientific discovery), where memory can enable knowledge accumulation, iterative reasoning and self-evolution. A number of memory methods have been proposed in the literature. However, these methods have not been systematically and comprehensively compared under the same experimental settings. In this paper, we first summarize a unified framework that covers existing representative agent memory methods from a high-level perspective. We then extensively compare representative agent memory methods on two long-term conversational benchmarks and an agentic memory benchmark, and examine the effectiveness of representative methods, providing a thorough analysis of those methods. As a byproduct of our experimental analysis, we also design a new memory method by exploiting modules in the existing methods, which outperforms the state-of-the-art methods. Finally, based on these findings, we offer promising future research opportunities. We believe that a deeper understanding of the behavior of existing methods can provide valuable new insights for future research.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Overview of naive long-context prompting and memory-augmented prompting.
Method
Information Extraction
Management Operations
Storage Structure
Retrieval Mechanism
A-MEM ( Wujiang et al., 2025 )
Direct archive, Summarization-based extract
Connect, Update
Flat, Vector
Vector-Based
MemoryBank ( Zhong et al., 2024 )
Direct archive
Integrate, Update, Filter
Flat, Vector
Vector-Based
MemGPT ( Packer et al., 2023 )
Direct archive
Integrate, Transform, Update
Hierarchical, Vector
Lexical-Based, Vector-Based
Mem0 ( Chhikara et al., 2025 )
Direct archive, Summarization-based extract
Integrate, Update, Filter
Flat, Vector
Vector-Based
Mem0 g ( Chhikara et al., 2025 )
Graph-based extract
Connect, Update, Filter
Flat, Graph
Vector-Based, Structure-Based
MemoChat ( Lu et al., 2023 )
Direct archive
Integrate
Flat
LLM-Assisted
Table 1. Classification of representative agent memory methods.
Figure 2. An overview of the unified framework for agent memory systems.
Figure 3. Methods of information extraction.
Figure 4. A sample prompt for summarization-based extraction.
Figure 5. Workflow of the memory management process.
Method
Connecting
Integrating
Transforming
Updating
Filtering
A-MEM
Associative Links
N/A
N/A
LLM-based
N/A
MemoryBank
N/A
Summarization
N/A
Rule-based
Usage-based
MemGPT
N/A
Summarization
Stage-wise Transfer
Agent-based
N/A
Mem0
N/A
Summarization
N/A
Agent-based
Content-based
Mem0 g
Structural Edges
N/A
N/A
LLM-based
Content-based
MemoChat
N/A
Abstraction
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table 2. Comparison of implementation paradigms for memory management operations; “N/A” means that this operation is not explicitly implemented.
Method
Information Extraction
Multi-Session
Temporal
Knowledge Updates
Overall
user
assistant
preference
F1
BLEU-1
F1
BLEU-1
F1
BLEU-1
F1
BLEU-1
F1
BLEU-1
F1
BLEU-1
F1
BLEU-1
Qwen3.5-9B
A-MEM
40.15
35.99
43.51
36.02
11.72
0.91
17.08
14.58
22.91
16.47
31.91
29.05
26.81
21.92
MemoryBank
56.17
46.14
66.64
55.02
20.67
9.54
17.70
10.73
22.41
14.75
37.20
27.84
33.04
24.32
MemGPT
55.54
49.79
54.67
46.00
13.63
3.82
19.19
17.19
22.30
15.86
29.54
27.07
30.36
25.37
Table 3. Comparison of methods on LONGMEMEVAL. The best and second-best results are marked in bold and underlined, respectively.
Method
Single-Hop
Multi-Hop
Temporal
Open-Domain
Overall
F1
BLEU-1
Acc
F1
BLEU-1
Acc
F1
BLEU-1
Acc
F1
BLEU-1
Acc
F1
BLEU-1
Acc
Qwen3.5-9B
A-MEM
34.38
30.22
53.75
23.26
15.18
52.13
18.30
13.12
52.02
12.38
8.78
39.58
27.62
22.57
52.21
MemoryBank
45.05
39.09
71.70
36.93
28.77
78.01
27.29
22.20
54.52
13.83
10.05
38.54
37.92
31.87
67.21
MemGPT
38.97
33.32
54.34
25.11
17.45
50.00
16.57
13.47
41.74
14.99
10.99
34.38
30.27
24.88
49.68
Mem0
34.66
29.75
63.26
29.69
21.36
68.79
42.68
36.97
61.68
20.66
14.70
45.83
34.55
28.78
62.86
Table 4. Comparison of methods on LOCOMO. The best and second-best results are marked in bold and underlined, respectively.
Figure 6. Performance and efficiency analysis on LOCOMO.
Figure 7. Robustness analysis of memory mechanisms on LONGMEMEVAL. (a) illustrates the context scalability as the input scale varies from 50% to 200%, while (b) shows the position sensitivity regarding ground-truth information placed at different relative positions: Early (first 1/3), Middle (middle 1/3), and Late (last 1/3).
Without Query-Time LLM Calls
With Query-Time LLM Calls
Method
A-MEM
MemoryBank
MemGPT
Mem0
Zep
MemTree
MemOS
MemGAS
LightMem
Mem0 g
MemoChat
MemoryOS
Latency (ms)
617.1
864.8
105.8
356.4
536.8
24.5
346.7
793.4
78.1
3783.1
1792.4
2329.6
Table 5. Average retrieval latency per query (ms).
Model
Metric
Zep
MemoryOS
MemOS
LightMem
Qwen3.5-9B
F1
42.89
37.36
42.21
34.70
BLEU-1
36.94
29.92
36.65
28.18
Qwen3.5-27B
F1
46.62
44.36
48.88
39.67
BLEU-1
39.88
36.92
41.35
32.55
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
F1
43.16
42.82
48.52
38.88
BLEU-1
38.71
35.31
40.11
31.69
Table 6. Comparison across LLM backbones on LOCOMO.
Figure 8. Comparison of our newly designed method in terms of average token costs.
LOCOMO
LONGMEMEVAL
Method
F1
BLEU-1
F1
BLEU-1
Zep
42.89
36.94
—
—
MemTree
38.53
31.01
41.24
34.69
MemoryOS
37.36
29.92
41.02
35.61
MemOS
42.21
36.65
37.29
30.66
LightMem
34.70
28.18
39.31
32.49
Table 7. Comparison of our newly designed method on LOCOMO and LONGMEMEVAL.
Method Variants
SH
MH
TR
OK
Overall
Ours
49.63
36.94
39.86
19.69
43.40
w/o Tree
45.82
35.23
31.89
14.25
39.01
w/o SP
47.97
34.99
35.24
19.20
41.15
w/o HM & SP ( MemTree )
43.42
34.21
33.08
26.54
38.53
w/o Tree & SP ( MemoryOS )
43.58
35.64
28.05
18.98
37.36
w/o Tree, w/ Graph
45.52
33.68
40.06
19.59
40.60
Table 8. Component ablations and organization variants measured by F1 score on LOCOMO.
Method
Bundled Web Shopping
Group Travel Planning
Progressive Web Search
Formal Reasoning
All Task Avg SR
Math
Phys
SR
PS
SR
PS
sPS
Acc
#Search
SR
PS
SR
PS
A-MEM
0.00
31.03
0.00
0.27
6.32
2.26
7.04
10.00
25.92
35.00
56.54
9.45
MemoryBank
0.00
32.08
0.00
0.21
5.97
5.43
6.09
17.50
24.49
35.00
54.04
11.59
MemGPT/Letta
0.00
36.45
0.00
0.00
4.82
3.62
7.09
20.00
28.58
20.00
49.04
8.72
Mem0
0.00
31.91
0.00
0.00
7.48
5.43
7.78
10.00
23.49
30.00
49.18
9.09
Table 9. Comparison of methods on MemoryArena. The best and second-best results are marked in bold and underlined, respectively.
Figure 9. F1 performance of different memory methods under varying retrieval top- k values.
Work
Primary Type
Design Taxonomy
Unified Multi-method Evaluation
Component–Performance Linkage
Evidence-guided Design Synthesis
Memory in the Age of AI Agents ( Hu et al., 2025b )
Survey
✓
✗
✗
✗
The AI Hippocampus: How Far Are We From Human Memory? ( Jia et al., 2026 )
Survey
✓
✗
✗
✗
A Survey on the Memory Mechanism of Large Language Model Based Agents ( Zhang et al., 2025 )
Survey
✓
✗
✗
✗
Rethinking Memory Mechanisms of Foundation Agents in the Second Half ( Huang et al., 2026 )
Survey
✓
✗
✗
✗
LOCOMO ( Maharana et al., 2024 )
Benchmark
✗
✗
✓
✗
LongMemEval ( Wu et al., 2025b )
Benchmark
✓
✗
✓
✓
Table 10. Positioning of our work against representative benchmarks and surveys on agent memory.
Figure 10. Task-Oriented Roadmap for Selecting Long-Term Memory Architectures under Different Scenarios.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 11. A sample prompt for graph-based extraction.
Figure 12. Prompt for answer simplification.
Figure 13. Context scalability of various memory methods across different task categories on LONGMEMEVAL.
Figure 14. Prompt for LLM-as-a-judge.
Method
Position
user
assistant
preference
Mem0 g
Early
63.80
23.35
11.39
Middle
57.60
20.39
12.87
Late
74.60
20.74
12.90
Improvement
+10.80
-2.61
+1.51
MemTree
Early
59.01
55.42
10.42
Middle
66.91
67.61
12.07
Appendix
Table 11. Position sensitivity analysis of representative memory mechanisms across Information Extraction sub-tasks on LONGMEMEVAL (F1 Score).
Figure 15. The framework of our newly designed method.
Figure 16. An example where a correctly generated answer is incorrectly evaluated by an LLM judge.
Question:
When did Caroline go to the LGBTQ support group?
Answer:
7 May 2023
Response type
Predicted answer
F1
BLEU-1
Correct (before simplification)
Caroline went to the LGBTQ support group on May 7, 2023.
0.3750
0.2307
Correct (after simplification)
May 7, 2023
0.8571
0.7500
Incorrect
8 May 2023
0.6667
0.6667
Appendix
Table 12. Example of the effect of answer simplification on F1 and BLEU-1 scores.
F1
BLEU-1
Method
Before
After
Δ
Before
After
Δ
A-MEM
26.90
27.62
+0.72
21.98
22.57
+0.59
Mem0
31.40
34.55
+3.15
25.32
28.78
+3.80
Zep
35.93
42.89
+6.96
30.78
36.94
+6.16
MemTree
35.36
38.53
+3.17
29.88
31.01
+1.13
MemoryOS
35.72
37.36
+1.64
26.15
29.92
+3.77
Appendix
Table 13. F1 and BLEU-1 scores of different methods before and after answer simplification on LOCOMO.
Organization
Vector
Graph
Tree
Flat
MemoryBank
Mem0 g
MemTree
Hierarchical
MemoryOS
Zep
MemOS
Appendix
Table 14. Classification of the selected memory baselines by storage organization and memory representation.
Figure 17. Classification and coverage of the evaluated token-level memory baselines following the taxonomy in Memory in the Age of AI Agents: A Survey.
Recent benchmarks for Large Language Model (LLM) agents mainly evaluate reasoning, planning, and execution. However, memory is also essential for agents, as it enables them to store, update, and retrieve information over time. This ability remains under-evaluated, largely because existing benchmarks do not provide a systematic way to assess memory mechanisms. In this paper, we study agent memory from a self-evolving perspective and introduce EvoMemBench, a unified benchmark organized along two axes: memory scope (in-episode vs. cross-episode) and memory content (knowledge-oriented vs. execution-oriented). We compare 15 representative memory methods with strong long-context baselines under a standardized protocol. Results show that current memory systems are still far from a general solution: long-context baselines remain highly competitive, memory helps most when the current context is insufficient or tasks are difficult, and no single memory form works consistently across all settings. Retrieval-based methods remain strong for knowledge-intensive settings, whereas procedural and long-term memory methods are more effective for execution-oriented tasks when their stored experience matches the task structure. We hope EvoMemBench facilitates future research on more effective memory systems for LLM-based agents. Our code is available at https://github.com/DSAIL-Memory/EvoMemBench.
Yuyao Wang, Zhongjian Zhang, Mo Chi +7
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Beijing Institute of Technology +1
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as autonomous agents in complex, long-horizon applications, where effective memory is critical for sustained performance. Yet existing memory benchmarks are largely dialogue-centric, while real agent memory consists of continuous agent-environment interaction trajectories composed of states, actions, observations, and tool outputs. To address this gap, we introduce AMA-Bench (Agent Memory with Any length), a benchmark for evaluating long-horizon memory in realistic agentic settings. AMA-Bench combines real-world agent trajectories from representative applications with expert-curated QA, as well as synthetic trajectories that scale to arbitrary horizons with rule-based QA. Our study shows that existing memory systems underperform because they fail to capture causal and objective information and rely heavily on lossy similarity-based retrieval. We further propose AMA-Agent, a memory system based on causality-graph construction and tool-augmented retrieval. AMA-Agent achieves 57.22% accuracy on AMA-Bench, outperforming the strongest baseline by 11.16%. Resources are available at: https://ama-bench.github.io/.
Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise as tool-using agents but remain limited in long-horizon tasks that require remembering, organizing, and reusing knowledge. Prior memory approaches aim to resolve the situation, but mainly focus on storing factual information. Recent work on procedural memory improves task reuse, yet often reduces to replaying past successes without addressing failure cases or online scalability. We introduce a unified and automatic memory framework that integrates semantic, episodic, and procedural memory in a bi-level design combining short-term and long-term stores. A multi-agent architecture with actor, memory, and critic agents enables automatic memory generation, reward annotation, and adaptive retrieval. Long-term memory is managed through reward-based evaluation, merging, and pruning, ensuring scalability and continual improvement. Experiments across various environments show that our approach improves robustness and success on long multi-turn tasks compared to existing baselines. This work highlights the importance of comprehensive, adaptive memory for advancing LLM-based agents.