Large language models still struggle with reliable long-term conversational memory: simply enlarging context windows or applying naive retrieval often introduces noise and destabilizes responses. We present APEX-MEM, a conversational memory system that combines three key innovations: (1) a property graph which uses domain-agnostic ontology to structure conversations as temporally grounded events in an entity-centric framework, (2) append-only storage that preserves the full temporal evolution of information, and (3) a multi-tool retrieval agent that understands and resolves conflicting or evolving information at query time, producing a compact and contextually relevant memory summary. This retrieval-time resolution preserves the full interaction history while suppressing irrelevant details. APEX-MEM achieves 88.88% accuracy on LOCOMO's Question Answering task and 86.2% on LongMemEval, outperforming state-of-the-art session-aware approaches and demonstrating that structured property graphs enable more temporally coherent long-term conversational reasoning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: End-to-end pipeline for constructing and querying APEX-MEM Graph, showing data flow from unstructured conversation to GraphSQL QA Agent.
Method
Single-Hop
Multi-Hop
Temporal
Open-Domain
Adversarial
Overall
w/o Adv.
APEX-MEM
Graph
QA Agent
APEX-MEM
Claude 4.5 Haiku
85.46%
84.74%
79.17%
89.18%
87.22 %
84.92%
84.25%
APEX-MEM
Claude 4.5 Sonnet
89.36 %
86.92 %
90.63 %
87.75%
86.10%
88.41%
89.08%
APEX-MEM
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
87.58%
84.74%
87.50%
88.94%
86.10%
86.90%
87.13%
APEX-MEM
GPT5
89.88%
86.29%
90.63 %
91.68 %
86.77%
88.88 %
89.49 %
APEX-MEM
GPT4o
88.47%
85.46%
83.49%
86.46%
84.98%
86.35%
86.75%
Table 1: LOCOMO Category Type Evaluation Results
Model
Fact
Schema
Entity/Prop.
Extraction
Coverage
Resolution
GPT4o
94.2%
75.7%
98.1%
Claude Sonnet 4.5
97.3%
91.1%
98.2%
Claude Haiku 4.5
95.8%
90.3%
95.4%
Qwen3-14B
95.4%
88.9%
92.5%
Table 2: APEX-MEM Construction metrics for fact extraction (precision of extracted facts), schema coverage (plausible properties covered), and entity resolution (detecting and linking to proper entity). We measure these metrics with 500 Random turns from LoCoMo and LongMemEval. GPT5 is used as the judge.
Method
Single-Hop
Multi-Hop
Temporal
Open-Domain
Adversarial
Overall
Graph
QA Agent: Claude 4.5 Haiku w/ Tools
APEX-MEM
SchemaViewer, EntityLookUp
80.85%
76.64%
72.92%
76.34%
77.80%
77.19%
+ GraphSQL
80.78%
79.75%
82.29%
78.00%
81.16%
79.45%
+ Search
85.46%
84.74%
79.17%
89.18%
87.22%
87.00%
Table 3: APEX-MEM Ablations of different tools
Method
Overall Score
APEX-MEM
Graph
QA Agent
APEX-MEM Online
Claude 4.5 Haiku
82.8%
Claude 4.5 Sonnet
86.2%
Claude 4 Sonnet
81.0%
GPT5
85.2%
GPT4o
75.0%
Table 4: LongMemEval Evaluation Results
Method
Acc.
APEX-MEM (Online)
QnAAgent
Claude 4 Sonnet
28.9%
Claude 4.5 Sonnet
35.2%
GPT5
40.1 %
GPT4o
19.0%
Baselines w/ Web-Search Tool
Table 5: SealQA Evaluation Results
Appendix figures & tables9 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Tool
Claude 4.5 Haiku
Claude 4.5 Haiku: Entity
Claude 4.5 Haiku: GraphSQL
Claude 4.5 Sonnet
EntityLookup
5160
17414
5546
4894
Search
8900
1058
0
10544
PropertySearch
3346
358
5016
3342
SchemaViewer
3958
4004
3622
3964
GraphSQL
8260
0
27282
7168
Appendix
Table 6: Tool Call Distribution Across Methods
SQL Category
Claude 4.5 Haiku
Claude 4.5 Haiku: Entity
Claude 4.5 Haiku: GraphSQL
Claude 4.5 Sonnet
SELECT
315
0
1850
88
JOIN
81
0
430
31
AGGREGATE
1417
0
4586
1230
TEMPORAL
2317
0
6775
2235
Appendix
Table 7: SQL Query Categories by Method
Category
Example Query
SELECT
SELECT DISTINCT entity_id, entity_name, entity_type FROM entities WHERE entity_name LIKE ’%Anthony%’ COLLATE NOCASE
JOIN
SELECT f.property_name, f.value_json, f.dtype FROM facts f JOIN evidence e ON e.fact_id = f.id WHERE e.event_id = 518
AGGREGATE
SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT device_name) as device_count FROM ( SELECT ’Fitbit Versa 3’ as device_name UNION SELECT ’nebulizer machine’ as device_name UNION SELECT ’Accu-Chek Aviva Nano’ as device_name UNION SELECT ’hearing aids’ as device_name )
TEMPORAL
SELECT f.value_json as start_date, date(:question_date) as question_date, julianday(:question_date) - julianday(json_extract(f.value_json, ’’))asdaysdifference,CAST((julianday(:questiondate)−julianday(jsonextract(f.valuejson,’’)))/ 30.44 AS INTEGER) as months_approx, CAST((julianday(:question_date) - julianday(json_extract(f.value_json, ’$’)))/7 AS INTEGER) as weeks_approx FROM facts f WHERE f.subject_id = :user_id AND f.property_name = :property_id ORDER BY f.created_at DESC LIMIT 1
Appendix
Table 8: Sample SQL Queries by Category
Figure 2: Analysis of Tool Calls v/s Accuracy on LOCOMO Dataset. We cap the max Tool calls at 40.
Method
GC
GC
Amort.
Mem
QnA
Total
Acc
Tok/Conv
Calls
GC/Q
Tok/Q
Tok/Q
Tok/Q
(w/o Adv)
MIRIX (est.)
∼ 15.2M
∼ 4,704
∼ 98,750
∼ 4,500
∼ 13,500
∼ 112,000
85.38%
Zep/Graphiti
∼ 9.4M
∼ 5,292
∼ 60,900
2,247
∼ 3,900
∼ 64,800
75.14%
Mem0 g (est.)
∼ 4.9M
∼ 2,352
∼ 31,882
3,616
∼ 5,300
∼ 37,200
68.44%
APEX-MEM
2.69M
3,717
13,557
8,000 ‡
∼ 16,000
∼ 30,000
84–89% †
Full Context
0
0
0
23,653
∼ 25,000
∼ 25,000
87.52%
Appendix
Table 9: Token consumption comparison across memory methods. † Accuracy depends on QnA model. ‡ Tunable via top- k retrieval budget. GC = Graph/Memory Construction; Amort. = Amortized over queries per conversation.
Component
Tok/Q
%
Source
Graph constr. (amort.)
13,557
16.6
Extraction, resolution
System prompt
7,854
9.6
Fixed per architecture
Memory retrieval
21,745
26.6
Graph search (top- k )
Agent loop overhead
16,174
19.8
Prior msgs in loop
Tool framing
22,274
27.3
Tool call/response fmt
Total (mean)
81,604
100
Appendix
Table 10: APEX-MEM token decomposition per query.
Metric
Sonnet
GPT-5
Sonnet
Haiku
4.5
(SQL)
SQL Executions
3,659
2,163
66,580
4,277
Successful
3,574
2,020
65,900
4,080
SQL Errors
87
143
791
197
Success Rate
97.6%
93.4%
98.8%
95.4%
Appendix
Table 11: GraphSQL execution analysis across LLM backends. “Sonnet (SQL)” denotes the GraphSQL-only ablation.
System
Append-Only?
Temporal
Δ
APEX-MEM
Yes
90.63%
—
Mem0
No (consolid.)
75.71%
–14.92
MIRIX
No (state merge)
65.62%
–25.01
Zep
Partial (temp. KG)
76.60%
–14.03
Appendix
Table 12: LOCOMO temporal accuracy: append-only vs. eager update strategies. Δ is the difference from APEX-MEM in percentage points.
Original Text
Entities
Types
Properties
Values
Data Types
"I went to a LGBTQ support group yesterday and it was so powerful."
Caroline
PERSON
P:attended_event
"LGBTQ support group"
str
P:experience_ description
"powerful"
str
LGBTQ support group
EVENT
P:event_date
"2023-05-07"
date
P:event_type
"support group"
str
"I just signed up for a pottery class yesterday. It’s like therapy for me."
Melanie
PERSON
P:activities_ participated
"pottery class"
str
P:activity_benefit
"therapy for me"
str
Appendix
Table 13: Examples of text-to-graph conversion in APEX-MEM. Each conversational utterance is systematically transformed into structured entity-property-value triplets with appropriate semantic types, enabling sophisticated querying and temporal reasoning over conversational knowledge.
Large language model assistants are increasingly expected to retain and reason over information accumulated across many sessions. We introduce EngramaBench, a benchmark for long-term conversational memory built around five personas, one hundred multi-session conversations, and one hundred fifty queries spanning factual recall, cross-space integration, temporal reasoning, adversarial abstention, and emergent synthesis. We evaluate Engrama, a graph-structured memory system, against GPT-4o full-context prompting and Mem0, an open-source vector-retrieval memory system. All three use the same answering model (GPT-4o), isolating the effect of memory architecture. GPT-4o full-context achieves the highest composite score (0.6186), while Engrama scores 0.5367 globally but is the only system to score higher than full-context prompting on cross-space reasoning (0.6532 vs. 0.6291, n=30). Mem0 is cheapest but substantially weaker (0.4809). Ablations reveal that the components driving Engrama's cross-space advantage trade off against global composite score, exposing a systems-level tension between structured memory specialization and aggregate optimization.
Efficient long-term conversational memory requires retrieving sufficient evidence without indiscriminately expanding the context presented to the language model. This is challenging because relevant evidence may be distributed across multiple sessions, while compression may discard details needed for answering. Different queries therefore require different forms of memory access. To capture these demands, we formulate memory access along two dimensions: discovery breadth, which controls how broadly evidence is searched, and reading fidelity, which controls whether evidence is read in compact form or recovered from the original conversation. Based on this formulation, we introduce JustMem, which stores conversation history as compact atomic memories and adapts memory access along these two dimensions to each query. Specifically, LOOKUP handles local evidence, COMPOSE broadens discovery for distributed evidence, and REPLAY increases reading fidelity for fidelity-sensitive evidence. On LoCoMo and LongMemEval-S, JustMem achieves the highest mean accuracy and retrieval recall among the compared memory systems while using substantially fewer generative-model tokens for memory construction and inference.
Long-horizon memory systems increasingly improve how evidence is stored and retrieved, yet the generator must still reason over fragments whose cross-session relationships are implicit. We study generation-time memory organization as a distinct design dimension and introduce GRAVITY (Generation-time Relational Anchoring Via Injected Topological MemorY), a host-independent auxiliary memory layer. GRAVITY consolidates raw dialogue into entity profiles, temporal event traces, and cross-session topic summaries, then retrieves and injects query-relevant records through the prompt interface. Across five heterogeneous memory systems on LongMemEval and LoCoMo, it improves every host--benchmark baseline under two distinct LLM configurations. Controlled analyses separate gains from organizing already available evidence and from consolidating information across the full history. Under a matched LightMem pipeline, the entity--event--topic representation reaches 83.9% on LoCoMo, 3.6% above the strongest of six alternative auxiliary representations. These results show that generation-time structure is a portable complement to existing memory retrieval, while its interaction with host evidence depends on the benchmark and host.
Yushi Sun, Bowen Cao, Dong Fang +2
LIGHTSPEED, Shenzhen, China · The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China