Existing memory benchmarks for LLM agents evaluate explicit recall of facts, yet overlook implicit memory where experience becomes automated behavior without conscious retrieval. This gap is critical: effective assistants must automatically apply learned procedures or avoid failed actions without explicit reminders. We introduce ImplicitMemBench, the first systematic benchmark evaluating implicit memory through three cognitively grounded constructs drawn from standard cognitive-science accounts of non-declarative memory: Procedural Memory (one-shot skill acquisition after interference), Priming (theme-driven bias via paired experimental/control instances), and Classical Conditioning (Conditioned Stimulus--Unconditioned Stimulus (CS--US) associations shaping first decisions). Our 300-item suite employs a unified Learning/Priming-Interfere-Test protocol with first-attempt scoring. Evaluation of 17 models reveals severe limitations: no model exceeds 66% overall, with top performers DeepSeek-R1 (65.3%), Qwen3-32B (64.1%), and GPT-5 (63.0%) far below human baselines. Analysis uncovers dramatic asymmetries (inhibition 17.6% vs. preference 75.0%) and universal bottlenecks requiring architectural innovations beyond parameter scaling. ImplicitMemBench reframes evaluation from "what agents recall" to "what they automatically enact".
Figures & tables
Benchmark
Memory Type
Evaluation Trigger
Context Scale (tokens)
Evaluation Size
Task Focus
LoCoMo ( Maharana et al., 2024 )
Explicit
Active (Explicit query)
9K
300 conversations
Multi-session QA
LongMemEval ( Wu et al., 2025 )
Explicit
Active (Explicit query)
115K–1.5M
500 questions
Information retrieval
MADial-Bench ( He et al., 2025 )
Explicit
Active (Emotion cued)
400
160 dialogues
Emotional dialogue
MemBench ( Tan et al., 2025 )
Explicit
Active (Explicit query)
1K–100K
53,000 QAs
Reflective memory during observation
MemoryAgentBench ( Hu et al., 2026 )
Explicit
Active (Explicit query)
100K–1.4M
14 datasets / 2,071 QAs
4 Competencies (Retrieval, Test-time Learning, Long Range Understanding, Selective Forgetting)
MEMTRACK ( Deshpande et al., 2025 )
Explicit
Active (Explicit task)
Variable
210 instances
Multi-platform State Tracking
Table 1: Comparison of ImplicitMemBench with existing memory benchmarks. Most prior benchmarks target explicit memory through active retrieval triggers, whereas ImplicitMemBench evaluates implicit memory through passive , scenario-driven behavioral adaptation.
Figure 1: Overall framework. (a) Dataset generation pipeline using LLM-generated candidates refined via fine-tuning and human editing. (b) Evaluation metrics: hybrid automatic/human validation for Procedural Memory (FTA), LLM-as-Judge for Priming (Priming Influence Score) and Classical Conditioning (FTA).
Figure 2: Performance ranking of all evaluated models on ImplicitMemBench . Models are sorted by overall score, with closed-source models shown in red-coral and open-source models in teal. The horizontal dashed line indicates the average performance across all models.
Table 6: Dataset composition showing task diversity and validation methods.
Figure 3: Dataset statistics across paradigms. (a) Token distribution per phase showing median and quartiles. (b) Phase proportions highlighting distinct memory testing strategies. (c) Turn structure patterns for each paradigm.
Rank
Model
Procedural
Classical
Priming
Overall
Memory
Conditioning
Score
Score
Elite Tier (Overall > 63%)
1
DeepSeek-R1 †
76.33
69.67
49.90
65.30
2
Qwen3-32B †
75.67
67.00
49.73
64.13
3
GPT-5
75.33
64.00
49.67
63.00
Strong Tier (55% < Overall ≤ 63%)
Table 7: ImplicitMemBench performance across 17 language models. Results show mean accuracy (%) over three independent runs for Procedural Memory and Classical Conditioning, with Priming scores from LLM-based evaluation. Models are ranked by overall performance and grouped into tiers. Bold : best in paradigm; underlined : second-best.
Figure 4: Behavioral adaptation patterns. (a) Inhibitory tasks show dramatically lower accuracy than preference tasks (mean difference: 57.4%, p < 0.001). (b) Five task categories remain universally challenging across all models, consistently below 60% accuracy.
Figure 5: Robustness and generalization failures. (a) Surface formatting achieves higher accuracy than deep multi-rule protocols. (b) Worst-case task performance reveals systematic vulnerabilities across modes.
Figure 6: Model profiles and trade-offs. (a) Correlation between priming strength and constraint violations (r=0.63) suggests style bias over abstraction. (b) Heatmap of normalized capability scores reveals distinct profiles: balanced (DeepSeek-R1), procedural specialists (Claude-4.1-opus), and priming-oriented (GPT-o3) architectures.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Developer
Model Family
Evaluated Variants
Type
OpenAI
GPT-4 Series
GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini
Proprietary
GPT-o Series
GPT-o3, GPT-o4-mini-high, GPT-5
Proprietary
Anthropic
Claude-4
Sonnet-4, Opus-4.1
Proprietary
Google
Gemini-2.5
Pro, Flash
Proprietary
DeepSeek
DeepSeek
R1
Open
Zhipu
GLM
4.5
Open
Appendix
Table 8: Language models evaluated on ImplicitMemBench , organized by developer and release generation.
Score Band
Evidence Requirements
Range
None
No detectable thematic influence
0-5
Trace
Single weak echo, minimal alignment
6-12
Weak
One clear thematic element, limited scope
13-20
Moderate
Two axes aligned, clear thematic presence
25-40
Strong
Multiple axes, consistent theme integration
45-60
Very Strong
Pervasive influence across all outputs
61-80
Appendix
Table 9: PIS scoring framework: Evidence requirements and score bands.
Model
Score (Orig.)
Rank (Orig.)
Score (New)
Rank (New)
Rank Change
DeepSeek-R1
65.3
1
64.1
1
–
Qwen3-32B
64.1
2
64.1
2
–
GPT-5
63.0
3
63.0
3
–
Qwen3-8B
62.4
4
62.8
4
–
GPT-o3
61.8
5
61.0
5
–
GPT-o4-mini-high
60.9
6
60.5
6
–
Appendix
Table 10: Cross-judge robustness analysis using GPT-4o-mini (original judge) and Gemini-2.5-Flash (new judge). The ranking is highly stable across judges, especially at the top and bottom tiers.
Interference Length
Avg. Acc.
Observation
~200 tokens
58.4%
Insufficient interference
~500 tokens
50.1%
Effective threshold
~1000 tokens
49.8%
Plateau
~2000 tokens
49.5%
Plateau
Appendix
Table 11: Sensitivity of Procedural Memory performance to interference length. Increasing context beyond ~500 tokens yields negligible additional change.
System
Proc.
Prim.
Cond.
Overall
Δ
DeepSeek-R1
76.33
49.90
69.67
65.30
–
Mem0 + Key Info
77.00
75.35
70.00
74.12
+8.82
Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct
50.67
44.12
35.67
43.49
–
Mem0 + Key Info
62.00
30.00
76.00
56.00
+12.51
Appendix
Table 12: Oracle-style Mem0 analysis. Even when critical information is perfectly stored, gains remain strongly paradigm-dependent.
System
Proc.
Prim.
Cond.
Overall
Δ
Qwen2.5-7B
50.67
44.12
35.67
43.49
–
MEM1
27.00
34.15
63.00
41.38
-2.11
Qwen2.5-14B
51.00
32.10
20.00
34.37
–
MemAgent
60.00
32.85
22.00
38.28
+3.91
Yi-34B-200K
50.00
30.70
16.00
32.23
–
MemGPT
44.00
34.70
25.00
34.57
+2.34
Appendix
Table 13: Memory-augmented agents versus their backbone models on ImplicitMemBench . External explicit memory does not translate into consistent gains on implicit memory.
Figure 7: Example of a Procedural Memory task: Reversed Parameter Protocol.
Figure 8: Example of a Priming task: Creative Naming with experimental (Volcanic Eruption) vs. control (Dewey Decimal Classification) conditions.
Figure 9: Example of a Classical Conditioning task: Conditioned Protocol Preference.
Model
Strengths
Weaknesses
Closed-Source Models
GPT-4o-mini
High brevity ( ≈ 0.97); directory 0.90; stable surface compliance.
Overall classical 0.440; brittle on negative-association categories.
GPT-4o
Solid formatting; decent brevity and emotion-driven shifts.
Low classical (0.437); near-zero on distrust and jargon; multi-rule protocols fragile.
GPT-o4-mini-high
Best priming (51.9); high brevity ( ≈ 0.97); directory 0.90; context-dependent 0.60.
Classical 0.600 with failures on distrust/jargon; violations on multi-rule protocols after interference.
GPT-o3
Strong priming (51.7); high procedural (0.760); good surface compliance.
Classical 0.577; distrust/jargon brittle under paraphrase.
Classical capped at 0.640; jargon avoidance remains very low.
Appendix
Table 14: Model capability profiles across task families. Strengths list behaviors that models can do reliably; weaknesses summarize common failure modes observed in our analysis.
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
While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in long interactions, existing evaluations focus predominantly on retrospective memory (RM) via explicit queries. Prospective memory (PM), the critical ability to spontaneously recall and act on latent constraints without direct prompts, remains largely unevaluated. We introduce TriggerBench, a comprehensive PM benchmark spanning five dimensions across both daily assistants and professional workflows. TriggerBench pairs scenarios with matched RM controls, contrastive positive/negative variants, and overloaded triggers, enabling fine-grained measurement of proactive recall, false-alarm rate, and attentional robustness under a single protocol. Our evaluation yields three key findings. (i) PM shows a precision-recall trade-off and attentional fragility. Though enhanced reasoning significantly improves proactive recall, models may overfit to an "always-remind" heuristic. Furthermore, PM accuracy degrades substantially under implicit constraints or triggers overloaded by concurrent user requests, indicating that robust PM remains an open challenge. (ii) PM is notably harder than RM: on identical contexts, RM near-saturates up to 100K tokens, while PM decays sharply as context length scales. (iii) PM may serve as a behavioral probe of spare reasoning capacity. Pairing PM scenarios with AIME-2025 math problems reveals that successful trajectories yield higher PM accuracy than failed ones at the same context length, showing PM tracks spare reasoning budget that token count obscures. Project page: https://github.com/KristenZHANG/TriggerBench-Official.
Tianhua Zhang, Xinjiang Wang, Qianxi Zhang +6
The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Microsoft Research Asia
Memory has become a key component of large language models, enabling them to retain information and learn from long-term interactions. However, existing memory benchmarks mainly evaluate whether information is correctly extracted, stored, and retrieved, while largely overlooking how retrieved memories reshape model reasoning and affect performance on the current task. We identify memory-induced cognitive traps: even faithfully recorded and semantically relevant memories can distort model reasoning or beliefs and degrade current task performance. To systematically evaluate these failure modes, we introduce MemTrapBench, which covers two forms of cognitive traps: Reasoning Fixation and Belief Distortion. Experiments across two model families and five representative memory frameworks show that MemTrapBench is challenging: all evaluated memory strategies underperform the no-memory setting, with even the strongest methods suffering drops of more than 10%. To mitigate these cognitive traps, we propose AdaptiveMem, a simple yet effective inference-time method that instructs LLMs to avoid memory traps. AdaptiveMem mitigates cognitive traps on MemTrapBench while preserving or improving performance on standard memory benchmarks across diverse memory frameworks.
Mengru Wang, Haozhe Luo, Zhenqian Xu +6
Zhejiang University · National University of Singapore · Northeastern University +2