Back to Basics: Let Conversational Agents Remember with Just Retrieval and Generation
Organizations: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · National University of Singapore
Abstract
Existing conversational memory systems rely on complex hierarchical summarization or reinforcement learning to manage long-term dialogue history, yet remain vulnerable to context dilution as conversations grow. In this work, we offer a different perspective: the primary bottleneck may lie not in memory architecture, but in the Signal Sparsity Effect within the latent knowledge manifold. Through controlled experiments, we identify two key phenomena: Decisive Evidence Sparsity, where relevant signals become increasingly isolated with longer sessions, leading to sharp degradation in aggregation-based methods; and Dual-Level Redundancy, where both inter-session interference and intra-session conversational filler introduce large amounts of non-informative content, hindering effective generation. Motivated by these insights, we propose \method, a minimalist framework that brings conversational memory back to basics, relying solely on retrieval and generation via Turn Isolation Retrieval (TIR) and Query-Driven Pruning (QDP). TIR replaces global aggregation with a max-activation strategy to capture turn-level signals, while QDP removes redundant sessions and conversational filler to construct a compact, high-density evidence set. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate that \method achieves robust performance across diverse settings, consistently outperforming strong baselines while maintaining high efficiency in tokens and latency, establishing a new minimalist baseline for conversational memory.
Figures & tables
| Model | Recall@3 | NDCG@3 | Recall@5 | NDCG@5 | Recall@10 | NDCG@10 | Time |
| MPNet ( 2020 ) | 45.92 | 47.68 | 53.98 | 51.76 | 68.58 | 56.85 | 1.42s |
| Contriever ( 2021 ) | 49.95 | 52.15 | 58.31 | 56.29 | 71.80 | 60.91 | 1.24s |
| MPC ( 2023 ) | 49.50 | 51.47 | 57.45 | 55.53 | 71.85 | 60.47 | 0.81s |
| RecurSum ( 2025 ) | 47.23 | 48.99 | 59.01 | 54.58 | 74.97 | 60.07 | 1.26s |
| SeCom ( 2025 ) | 52.97 | 54.03 | 64.05 | 59.37 | 78.25 | 64.28 | 2.17s |
| HippoRAG 2 ( 2025 ) | 56.60 | 58.37 | 65.06 | 62.50 | 78.05 | 66.79 | 3.70s |
| Model | 4o-J | F1 | BLEU4 | ROUGE1 | ROUGE2 | ROUGEL | BERTScore | Avg. Tokens |
| LoCoMo | ||||||||
| Full History | 33.43 | 12.23 | 1.84 | 12.70 | 5.66 | 11.73 | 84.07 | 20,078 |
| MPNet ( 2020 ) | 38.07 | 14.52 | 2.36 | 14.97 | 6.82 | 13.84 | 84.46 | 2,474 |
| Contriever ( 2021 ) | 40.33 | 15.76 | 2.77 | 16.08 | 7.75 | 15.10 | 84.70 | 2,348 |
| MPC ( 2023 ) | 40.38 | 14.81 | 1.99 | 15.10 | 6.83 | 14.13 | 84.43 | 2,683 |
| RAPTOR ( 2024 ) | 29.46 | 14.44 | 2.85 | 14.97 | 7.37 | 14.02 | 84.39 | 1,931 |
| Model | Consturct | Retrieval | Generation | Total Time | F1 |
| Contriever | \ | 1.24s | 381.71s. | 382.95s | 15.76 |
| MPNet | \ | 1.42s | 317.28s | 318.70s | 14.52 |
| Secom | 294.62s | 2.17s | 111.81s | 316.17s | 15.28 |
| MemGAS | 101.42s | 2.64s | 281.93s | 361.78s | 17.66 |
| Nano-Memory | \ | 0.74s | 187.2s | 187.96s | 22.66 |
| Model | 4o-J | F1 | BLEU4 | ROUGE1 | ROUGE2 | ROUGEL | BERTScore | Avg. Tokens |
| Baseline | 40.33 | 15.76 | 2.77 | 16.08 | 7.75 | 15.10 | 84.70 | 2,348 |
| w/ | 43.42 | 19.62 | 3.85 | 19.86 | 10.43 | 18.68 | 85.33 | 2,685 |
| w/ + | 48.84 | 22.66 | 5.33 | 22.92 | 12.04 | 21.68 | 85.94 | 1,403 |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Dataset | LoCoMo | Long-MT-Bench+ | LongMemEval-s | LongMemEval-m |
| Conversation Subject | User-User | User-AI | User-AI | User-AI |
| Session Dates | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Retrieval Ground-Truth | ✓ | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ |
| QA Ground-Truth | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Total Conversations | 10 | 11 | 500 | 500 |
| Avg. Sessions | 27.2 | 4.9 | 47.7 | 475.3 |
| Category | Example Works | Operation | Effectiveness | Simplicity | Tokens | Latency |
| Keyword-Level | A-Mem ( 2025 ) , H-MEM ( 2025 ) | Extract turn/session details | ✗ | |||
| Turn-Level | Conditional Memory ( 2024 ) | Raw Turn Retrieval | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Session-Level | MemoChat ( 2023 ) , LD-Agent ( 2025 ) | Raw Session Retrieval | ✗ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Summary-Level | Memorybank ( 2024 ) , Recursum ( 2025 ) | Recurrent summary | ✗ | |||
| Topic-Level | Secom ( 2025 ) , LightMem ( 2025 ) | Semantic segmentation | ||||
| Multi-Granularity | MemGAS ( 2026 ) , TiMem ( 2026 ) | Adaptive Fusion | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
| Model | 4o-J | F1 | BLEU4 | ROUGE1 | ROUGE2 | ROUGEL | BERTScore | Avg. Tokens |
| LoCoMo | ||||||||
| Baseline | 40.33 | 15.76 | 2.77 | 16.08 | 7.75 | 15.10 | 84.70 | 2,348 |
| + | 43.42 | 19.62 | 3.85 | 19.86 | 10.43 | 18.68 | 85.33 | 2,685 |
| + + | 48.84 | 22.66 | 5.33 | 22.92 | 12.04 | 21.68 | 85.94 | 1,403 |
| LongMTBench+ | ||||||||
| Baseline | 63.54 | 31.82 | 7.51 | 33.42 | 18.91 | 26.53 | 87.01 | 12,045 |
Conversational Memory
Conversational memory equips AI assistants to retain, update, and retrieve useful information from past interactions for coherent, personalized dialogue.
See all 71 papers