Selective QA over Conflicting Multi-Source Personal Memory: A Diagnostic Testbed and Method Comparison

LLM-based memory systems increasingly maintain facts that evolve over time, where a recurring failure is conflict resolution: when a fact has multiple contradictory values, which should the agent return? MemoryAgentBench (MAB; Hu et al., 2026) makes this explicit in its FactConsolidation task: facts are numbered, the counterfactual has the higher serial, and agents are told newer facts have larger serials. Yet every published system underperforms: HippoRAG-v2 reaches 54% on single-hop (FC-SH), BM25 48%, Mem0 18%, and the temporal KG Zep/Graphiti just 7%. Multi-hop is near-unsolved (at most 7% across 22 systems). We argue the bottleneck is the assembly step: baselines leave conflict resolution to LLM-mediated retrieval or generation rather than version-aware aggregation. A matched-setup comparison (same backbone, retrieval, chunking, TOP_K) shows that replacing the LLM-judgment answer pipeline with candidate-extraction plus Python max(serial) yields +10.8 points on FC-SH (gpt-4o-mini), widening from +8 at 6K to +21 at 262K. This is a whole-pipeline effect (resolver, prompt, format, and temperature vary jointly); isolating the resolver is future work. The recipe reaches 78.0% on FC-SH (gpt-4o-mini), 94.8% (gpt-4o), and 30.2% on FC-MH (gpt-4o-mini, rising to 51.5% with gpt-4o) via a per-hop deterministic extension of Self-Ask. At matched-262K, it beats HippoRAG-v2 by +28 points and the best published FC-MH result by +20. The implication is corrective for the subfield: the bottleneck on conflict resolution is assembly (post-retrieval aggregation), not storage. A LongMemEval knowledge-update check shows the mechanism ports from max(serial) to max(timestamp) but only ties LLM judgment (57.8% vs 64.4%, n=45): deterministic aggregation is the right primitive for current-value conflicts and must be composed with question-type-aware handling for broader memory QA.

Existing benchmarks for multimodal memory reasoning largely evaluate systems within pre-assembled contexts, but under-evaluate whether agents can use evidence distributed across independently originated sources. We argue that source-distributed memory composition is an important and under-examined bottleneck in multimodal agent memory, especially when relevant evidence is fragmented across heterogeneous artifacts such as conversations, profiles, screenshots, tables, images, and documents. To address this gap, we introduce Source-distributed Multimodal Memory Benchmark(SMMBench), which measures whether agents can retrieve, align, and compose multimodal evidence scattered across multiple sources rather than reason within a single curated context. SMMBench evaluates four core capabilities: (1) cross-source multimodal reasoning; (2) conflict resolution; (3) preference reasoning; (4) memory-grounded action prediction. The benchmark contains 1877 samples grounded in 264 sources. Experiments on representative memory-style and retrieval-based baselines show that current systems still struggle on these capabilities, positioning source-distributed multimodal memory as an important and still under-evaluated challenge for multimodal agents. Our data are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/HuacanChai/SMMBench.

AI systems increasingly need to combine two demanding capabilities: navigating multi-session conversation history and performing deep reading comprehension within long documents. Yet no existing benchmark evaluates both simultaneously. We introduce MemoryDocDataSet, a synthetic benchmark of 50 micro-worlds and 1,000 QA pairs in which each instance comprises 3-5 personas, a temporal event graph spanning months of activity, 3-5 real long documents (20,000-50,000 tokens each sourced from the Caselaw Access Project), multi-session conversations grounded on those documents, and 20 question-answer pairs across five reasoning categories. The defining feature is the Hybrid source tag: questions requiring a system to first navigate conversation history to identify which document is relevant, then extract the answer from within that document. Hybrid questions account for 75.1% of the dataset. Dataset quality is characterised through a prompt-sensitivity self-consistency analysis using LLM-as-judge, yielding a median Cohen's $κ= 0.634$ across all 50 micro-worlds. We evaluate six baseline configurations spanning truncated context, long-context LLMs, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and memory systems. The best baseline (RAG-Both) achieves 0.358 overall F1 and 0.342 on Hybrid. Document-only retrieval (RAG-Doc) collapses to 0.267 on Hybrid despite achieving 0.453 on Doc-only questions, demonstrating a clear joint-retrieval gap that motivates architectures unifying conversational memory with long-document navigation. We release the dataset, generation pipeline, and all baseline implementations.