Abstract
We describe ConvMemory, a small 3.6M-parameter learned reranker for conversational long-term memory retrieval, trained with cross-encoder teacher supervision over fused dense and lexical features. On the LongMemEval memory family, ConvMemory operates above the BGE-large cross-encoder in Recall@10 at 12-47x lower latency, remains within 0.025 Recall@10 of mxbai-rerank-large-v1 on Clean500 while running 28x cheaper; under Stress1000 distractors the Recall@10 gap widens to 0.081 but ConvMemory still operates at 117x lower latency; these LongMemEval numbers are single-run or single-seed and are reported as indicative cost-frontier evidence, not benchmark-grade. We then publish a rigorous negative attribution result on a previously claimed mechanism: a five-seed retrained ablation with paired bootstrap shows that ConvMemory's learned temporal window is statistically significant on aggregate but not temporally specific, with the largest effects on hard non-temporal controls and no significant effect on multi-hop temporal queries. The honest description of the mechanism is cheap cross-encoder distillation in a fused dense+lexical feature space, not temporal-structure exploitation. We additionally release CCGE-LA, a low-amplitude conflict-aware candidate-set editor over ConvMemory, as a research preview with modest but consistent gains on supersession and stale/rescue slices on LoCoMo. All results are retrieval-stage; ConvMemory does not match mxbai-rerank-large-v1 in absolute LoCoMo MRR, and the report is single-author and not yet independently audited.
Explore similar work
Jun 9, 2026cs.CL
We describe ConvMemory v2, an opt-in token-evidence reranker that sits after the lightweight ConvMemory v1 reranker and reorders only v1's protected top-10 candidate set. v2 is a fine-tuned ms-marco-MiniLM-L-6-v2 cross-encoder (22,713,601 parameters, measured from the released checkpoint) applied to the ten (query, memory) pairs that v1 has already selected; it does not change which ten memories are returned, so Recall@10 and Hit@10 are identical to v1 by construction, not by statistical coincidence. On the LoCoMo conversational memory benchmark (5 seeds, n = 4955 test rows), v2 raises FULL MRR from v1's 0.5824 to 0.6560 (paired bootstrap +0.0734, 95% CI [+0.0645, +0.0827]) and H@1 from 0.4440 to 0.5474. v2 closes most but not all of the gap to a much more expensive full-pool cross-encoder reference (mxbai-rerank-large-v1 over the top-500, MRR 0.6688): on FULL MRR v2 sits 0.013 below mxbai_top500, but on two raw-dense-hard slices (where v1's protected top-10 has higher recall than mxbai's own top-10) v2 exceeds mxbai_top500. A four-arm load-bearing ablation shows candidate-specific memory text is the mechanism: removing, shuffling, or replacing it collapses MRR below raw dense retrieval. v2 is best understood as a standard recall-preserving cascade pattern with LoCoMo-specific fine-tuning, an explicit anti-shortcut inference contract, and disciplined load-bearing analysis; its advantage over mxbai is slice-specific rather than a general dominance claim. This report extends the v1 technical report (arXiv:2605.28062).
Taiheng Pan
Jun 25, 2026cs.CL
Conversational memory retrieval optimizes relevance, yet a retrieved memory can be relevant and simultaneously outdated: a later turn updates, corrects, or supersedes it. ConvMemory v3 adds a validity context layer that detects and surfaces this update evidence through target-conditioned relation verification, sitting after the v1/v2 retrieval path. The core mechanism is a dual-evidence gate that conditions a relation judgment on the specific target proposition, scoring a (target, source) pair through the product of a MiniLM slot head and a DeBERTa-v3 slot head and gating it by conservative event/operation evidence. On a synthetic multi-hop validity benchmark the gate reaches 90.12% +/- 1.73 accuracy; through a real-data feedback loop that mines failure patterns but trains on synthetic pairs only, the verifier transfers to Memora role binding with zero target-side labels, reaching 98.8% +/- 0.9 group-all-correct. The deployed layer preserves retrieval by default: a context mode attaches structured validity metadata while keeping the candidate set and rank order fixed, and a query-conditioned demote mode is an explicit opt-in for dense current-state workloads, where it raises current-active H@1 from a never-demote baseline of 45.1% to 95.7% +/- 1.2 while protecting non-superseded memories at 99.4% recall. Six machine-verifiable safety contracts pin the layer's behavior. Multi-hop graph propagation is validated as a mechanism; fully automatic construction of strict prerequisite edges is characterized as a boundary, since strict necessity requires counterfactual world knowledge. This report extends ConvMemory v1 (arXiv:2605.28062) and v2 (arXiv:2606.10842).
Taiheng Pan
Jun 2, 2026cs.LG
Retrieving the few past turns that answer a new query across long multi-session histories is the retrieval bottleneck behind long-term conversational memory (LoCoMo, LongMemEval). Recent concurrent work, Nano-Memory, shows that scoring a session by the maximum query-turn similarity (late interaction, "Turn Isolation Retrieval") beats mean-pooled session embeddings. We do not claim that effect; we replicate it and ask what a training-free, CPU-only retrieval stage should add around it. We report four findings. (1) Fuse: score-level fusion of the late-interaction dense score with BM25, under a single leave-one-conversation-out weight, adds +8.8 to +17.2 points of LoCoMo Hit@1 over late interaction alone across six encoders (all p<1e-4), reaching Hit@1 0.752 / NDCG@5 0.829 (e5-large-v2), +11.2 pp over BM25. (2) An off-the-shelf web-search cross-encoder reranker over the fused top-10 hurts here, degrading Hit@1 by 6.9 pp (one reranker, one configuration). (3) A pooling-operator ablation shows top-k late interaction matches max-similarity, but a naive smooth-max (log-sum-exp) collapses for half the encoders. (4) The late-minus-early gap is large for all six encoders and tends to be larger for larger ones, while the marginal fusion gain shrinks; on LongMemEval-S, a lexical regime where BM25 saturates, the net fusion gain over BM25 is small and not significant. A per-category analysis frames the gain as a division of labor: dense late interaction helps most on multi-hop and temporal questions but trails BM25 on adversarial ones. The contribution is a controlled, reproducible account of a strong training-free retrieval recipe, not the late-interaction retriever itself (Nano-Memory's). We make no claim to a complete memory architecture; this is a retrieval-stage study.
Christian Lysenstøen