Large Language Models (LLMs) have become a key foundation for enabling personalized smart home experiences. While existing studies have explored how smart home assistants understand user queries to control devices in real time, their ability to perform memory-driven device control remains challenging from both evaluation and methodological perspectives. In terms of evaluation, existing benchmarks either focus on immediate device control or general open-domain memory retrieval tasks, and therefore cannot effectively evaluate a model's ability to perform memory-driven device control. Methodologically, while memory-driven device control can be approached using Reinforcement Learning, conventional RL methods generally rely on outcome-based supervision (i.e., whether the final task is achieved). This lack of intermediate feedback can lead to sub-optimal performance or local failures in fine-grained memory management tasks (adding, updating, deleting, and utilizing). To address these issues, we first release MemHomeLife, built from anonymized real-world long-term user interaction logs. To enable more fine-grained evaluation of different memory-related subtasks, we further construct MemHome, the first benchmark designed to systematically evaluate memory-driven device control in smart home scenarios.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Overview of memory-driven device control framework in MemHome. Given a user query, rooms and layouts, the system retrieves relevant memories from the memory bank, and the device control model determines the appropriate control behavior. Green indicates No-Memory control, where the instruction is executed directly. Purple represents Memory State Change, where the model writes, updates, or deletes memory entries. Red denotes Memory Usage, where the device control command is rewritten based on retrieved memory.
Figure 2. MemHome: From Real Long-Term Dialogues to Memory-Centric Evaluation Cases. MemHomeLife preserves multi-turn interactions with evolving memory states, while MemHome is constructed by extracting cases with explicitly annotated relevant memories under a fixed environment.
Property
HomeBench
LoCoMo
MemoryBench
MemHome (Ours)
Application Domain
Smart Home
Open-domain
General Agent
Smart Home
Memory-related Task
×
✓
✓
✓
Explicit Memory Subtasks
×
×
×
✓
Instruction Tuning
✓
×
×
✓
Language
En
En
En
ZH
Table 1. Comparison of MemHome with existing related benchmarks.
No-Mem
Mem-Use
Mem-Change
All
#Samples
53
220
116
389
Rooms
15.06/16
14.77/16
14.87/16
14.84/16
Devices
118.91/124
116.52/129
117.07/129
117.01/129
Hist. Turns
1.02/5
0.76/3
0.85/4
0.82/5
Memory
2.06/3
1.10/2
1.78/4
1.43/4
Table 2. Statistics of the MemHome evaluation set. Values are reported as avg/max.
Figure 3. Overview of the Product Reward In Smart Memory. Overview of the PRISM reward design, showing prefix confidence, multiple consistency checks, and a multiplicative veto-based reward aggregation.
Base Model
Method
No-Memory
Memory Use
Memory State Change
Overall
F1 ↑
B1 ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
B1 ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
B1 ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
B1 ↑
Acc ↑
Qwen3-4B
Mem0
41.82
38.86
37.74
50.70
47.20
34.55
77.94
73.93
68.97
57.61
54.03
45.25
Memory-SFT
39.82
36.77
35.85
58.55
57.97
57.73
61.84
58.27
50.86
56.98
55.17
52.70
Memory-R1
41.64
38.66
41.64
49.96
47.71
42.73
80.96
76.94
72.41
58.07
55.19
51.43
PRISM
56.88
54.25
52.83
65.10
62.85
58.64
81.30
76.94
72.41
68.81
65.88
61.95
Qwen3-8B
Mem0
43.09
41.39
52.83
57.61
56.22
55.00
72.63
69.29
68.10
60.11
58.10
58.61
Table 3. Main results of different training strategies on MemHome. We report F1, BLEU-1 (B1), and LLM-as-Judge accuracy (Acc) for each subtask category and overall. All metrics are reported as percentages (%) and are higher-is-better. Best results are highlighted in bold.
Model
No-Memory
Memory Use
Memory State Change
Overall
F1 ↑
B1 ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
B1 ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
B1 ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
B1 ↑
Acc ↑
GPT-5
61.82
60.99
73.58
69.42
68.37
70.00
78.85
75.37
79.31
71.20
69.45
73.26
Gemini-2.5 Pro
58.11
57.25
73.58
78.35
76.91
77.73
85.02
81.16
82.76
77.58
75.50
78.66
Deepseek-V3.2
58.38
57.51
71.70
63.24
61.69
61.36
80.21
76.34
75.00
67.64
65.49
66.84
Qwen3-235B
50.50
49.67
66.04
70.57
68.81
65.45
80.11
76.59
74.14
70.68
68.52
68.12
Qwen2.5-72B
46.61
45.62
56.60
64.12
62.17
60.45
84.86
81.22
76.72
67.92
65.60
64.78
Table 4. Main results of different device control models on MemHome. We report F1, BLEU-1 (B1), and LLM-as-Judge accuracy (Acc) for each subtask category as well as overall. All metrics are reported as percentages (%) and are higher-is-better. Best results are highlighted in bold.
Model
F1 ↑
BLEU-1 ↑
Acc ↑
GPT-5
72.04
66.90
64.17
Gemini-2.5 Pro
72.36
68.34
68.33
Deepseek-V3.2
67.46
61.97
55.83
Qwen3-235B
62.70
56.84
53.33
Table 5. Main results of different device control models on MemHomeLife.
Base model
Method
F1 ↑
BLEU-1 ↑
Acc ↑
Qwen3-4B
Mem0
38.22
37.36
35.00
Memory-SFT
44.02
42.36
40.00
Memory-R1
43.55
40.17
33.33
Prism
53.22
50.21
48.33
Qwen3-8B
Mem0
49.15
47.44
45.83
Memory-SFT
53.07
48.32
49.17
Table 6. Main results of different training strategies on MemHomeLife.
Figure 4. Ablation study on reward design with Qwen3-4B. We compare different prefix reward weights λ .
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Setting
No-Memory
Memory Use
Memory State Change
Overall
F1 ↑
B1 ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
B1 ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
B1 ↑
Acc ↑
F1 ↑
B1 ↑
Acc ↑
prefix λ=0.3
56.88
54.25
52.83
65.10
62.85
58.64
81.30
76.94
72.41
68.81
65.88
61.95
prefix λ=0
50.76
48.89
54.72
62.70
60.23
55.45
80.06
76.47
74.14
66.25
63.53
60.93
prefix λ=0.5
44.42
43.23
54.72
64.96
61.93
55.91
78.86
75.08
73.28
66.31
63.30
60.93
prefix λ=0.7
44.96
43.43
50.94
62.05
59.76
52.73
80.17
76.42
70.69
65.13
62.50
57.84
Additive Multi-Dim Reward (No Veto)
42.46
40.15
50.94
61.01
57.63
50.00
81.69
77.38
74.14
64.65
61.14
57.33
Appendix
Table 7. Ablation study on reward design (4B models). We compare different prefix reward weights λ and judge granularities. The first row shows the full model configuration ( λ=0.3 with multi-dimensional judges), while the remaining rows correspond to ablations. All metrics are higher-is-better. Best results among ablations are highlighted in bold.
Hyperparameter
SFT
GRPO with PRISM
Base model
Qwen3 (4B / 8B)
Qwen3 (4B / 8B)
Training epochs
3
4
Train batch size
16
8
Learning rate
1×10−5
5×10−7
Optimizer
AdamW
–
PPO mini-batch size
–
4
Appendix
Table 8. Training hyperparameters for supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL) stages.
Smart homes are evolving toward complex state-dependent living environments, requiring Large Language Models (LLMs) to reason over user intent, preferences, and multi-device interactions. However, existing smart-home benchmarks often focus on static instruction-to-API mapping or limited simulations, failing to evaluate whether LLMs can reason, interact, and act reliably in realistic household scenarios. To address these limitations, we introduce SMH-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs in smart-home environments. Built upon HomeEnv, an executable and verifiable smart-home simulator, SMH-Bench contains 1,100 high-quality tasks spanning 7 categories and 22 fine-grained subcategories. It further stratifies tasks across simple, medium and complex homes, ranging from small apartments to dense multi-room environments with 135 devices. Experiments show that although frontier LLMs achieve strong performance on explicit control and query tasks, they still exhibit significant weaknesses in automation task scheduling, ambiguity handling and personalized reasoning, especially as home complexity increases. We hope SMH-Bench will facilitate the development of more reliable, context-aware, and practically deployable smart-home agents.
Kuan Li, Shuo Zhang, Huacan Wang +12
Midea Group · Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · Donghua University +2
Command understanding systems in smart home ecosystems can automate device control and substantially improve user experience. However, while they perform well on precise utterances (e.g., "turn on the bedroom light"), they struggle with ambiguous or misaligned commands (e.g., "make the bedroom cozy"). Large language models (LLMs) generalize well across various domains and can outperform traditional rule-based systems on such tasks, but their effectiveness is often constrained by scarce domain-specific data, insufficient task-specific adaptation, and high computational costs. In this paper, we propose an automated training data synthesis workflow using user logs and LLMs; then we build MiCU, a domain-specific LLM that excels at command understanding. Specifically, we employ curriculum learning to inject domain knowledge into the base LLM, then we enhance its reasoning ability via cold-start training combined with reinforcement learning (RL) guided by domain-specific thinking rules. Additionally, we introduce a token compression technique that condenses device description into a single special token, substantially reducing inference overhead and enabling \model-fast, an efficient variant optimized for long inputs. Extensive experiments show that MiCU significantly outperforms baselines, with an average accuracy gain of 20.01% across all device categories. We have deployed MiCU in the Xiaomi Home app, receiving approximately 1.7 million page views per day. Production evaluations show that MiCU reduces user correction rate by 1.57% and increases human audited accuracy by 32.05%. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/xiaomi-research/iot_spec_llm
Haowei Han, Kexin Hu, Weiwei Cai +6
Xiaomi Corporation · School of Computer Science Wuhan University Wuhan, China · Institute for Math & AI Wuhan University Wuhan, China
Large language model agents are moving beyond text-only interaction toward physical-world control, with smart homes as a representative domain. Real domestic interaction requires understanding ambiguous intents, operating in dynamic environments, and performing multi-turn reasoning. However, existing methods struggle to generate high-quality training data for smart home agents. We propose HomeFlow, a verifiable data flywheel for this domain. HomeFlow uses HomeEnv as a unified simulation environment and HomeMaker to procedurally generate diverse home settings. Subsequently, Blueprint compiles open-ended user intents into executable state-based success conditions, while MCTS-Flow synthesizes diverse, verifiable multi-turn trajectories through environment-guided tree search. We then optimize the agents via supervised fine-tuning and step-wise RLVE, which facilitates iterative improvement through authentic physical feedback. We further construct SmartHome-Bench to evaluate the agent across various smart home tasks. On this benchmark, HomeFlow-RL-4B and HomeFlow-RL-8B achieve task success rates of 84.60% and 87.03%. It is worth noting that HomeFlow-RL-8B even surpasses the leading GPT-5.5 by 1.23 percentage points.
Yi Gu, Huacan Wang, Shuo Zhang +10
1Midea Group · 2Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · 3Donghua University +1