The next generation of AI agents is increasingly moving beyond systems that answer isolated questions toward persistent personal assistants that can understand, remember, and continuously learn from users' experiences. Such assistants require long-term memory to accumulate and leverage user-specific experiences over time, yet existing benchmarks remain inadequate for realistic mobile settings, where experiences are heterogeneous, multimodal, evolving, and deeply personal. We introduce MobileMem, a benchmark and framework for studying on-device long-term memory, grounded in a year-scale collection of mobile experiences. MobileMem employs a knowledge-grounded synthesis pipeline to construct coherent and temporally consistent long-horizon trajectories from user-app sessions. It provides complementary text and multimodal settings covering multi-hop and temporal reasoning, knowledge updating, and implicit preference inference. Specifically, MobileMem enables agents to remember the past, understand the present, and adapt to the future. By modeling experiences rather than isolated facts, MobileMem moves memory beyond information retrieval toward experiential intelligence for continuous personal learning.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: MobileMem breaks down data silos across chat, photos, reading, shopping, and travel apps, unifying fragmented data into one memory layer for proactive personalization.
Figure 3: The position of MobileMem in the envisioned on-device memory ecosystem, with a two - layer composite architecture and an information exchange protocol between them.
Figure 4: Overview of the data synthesis framework. The KEME framework progressively synthesizes long-horizon interaction trajectories and QA pairs from user prior knowledge, with quality control applied throughout the pipeline.
Method
Performance
Cost
Single.
Multi.
Temp.
Rel.
QFS
Adv.
Others
Overall
In. Tok.
Out. Tok.
Overall
GPT-4.1-mini
Long Context
56.54
51.71
53.76
58.33
47.06
51.89
60.87
54.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
NaiveRAG
38.58
31.23
29.03
29.17
20.59
60.38
47.83
37.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
HippoRAG2
85.67
79.00
61.29
87.50
73.53
50.94
82.61
78.85
2,307.44
495.84
2,803.28
LangMem
23.62
14.96
12.90
20.83
11.76
76.42
39.13
24.79
3,836.97
548.49
4,385.46
Table 1: End-to-end task performance and token cost (in thousands) of memory systems. We evaluate each method with two LLM backbones, GPT-4.1-mini and GPT-5.4-mini. Due to space limitations, the six most frequent question types are displayed, while the remaining question types are grouped into “Others”. Here, “Single.”, “Multi.”, “Temp.”, “Rel.”, “QFS”, and “Adv.” denote single-hop, multi-hop, temporal-reasoning, relationship-related, query-focused summarization, and adversarial questions, respectively. “In. Tok.” and “Out. Tok.” denote the average number of input tokens and output tokens, respectively, used by a memory system to construct memories over one user trajectory. For each backbone, the best result in each column is highlighted in bold .
Figure 5: Distribution of error types across four memory systems. We randomly sample 20 failure cases from each system for error analysis.
Profile Schema
Lexical ↑
Semantic ↑
Coarse-grained
0.7238
0.4783
Medium-grained
0.7313
0.4932
Fine-grained
0.7310
0.4875
Table 2: Trajectory diversity under varying profile schema granularity. Values are averaged across three seed persons and five length-matched sampling rounds.
Figure 6: Hard-distractor synthesis with KEME . (a) The top table compares average accuracy (%) across two memory systems on the original LongMemEval trajectories and the KEME -synthesized trajectories. When the retrieval budget is set to top- 10 , EverMemOS makes an additional error on the question instance 50635ada . When the retrieval budget is reduced to top- 5 , NaiveRAG shows a larger performance drop of 20% , failing on 0ddfec37 and gpt4_4929293a . (b) The bottom-left panel shows the trajectory length distribution measured by the number of messages. (c) The bottom-right panel visualizes the rank change of source evidence under semantic-similarity-based ranking with NaiveRAG. Each point corresponds to one source evidence and its rank normalized by the total number of memory units. For absolute rank, KEME yields lower ranks for only 4 out of 18 evidence items. However, after normalization, KEME consistently pushes the answer-supporting evidence toward less favorable retrieval positions by introducing semantically similar distractors, increasing the average normalized rank by 10.63 percentage points. For readability, one evidence (its normalized ranks are approximately 0.9680 for LongMemEval and 1.0000 for KEME ) is omitted from the plot.
User Statistics
Number of Users
16
English Interaction Users
8
Chinese Interaction Users
8
Total Events
1,589
Interaction Statistics
Avg Context Length (tokens/user)
1.72M
Table 3: Statistical Overview of MobileMem-Omni .
Task
Overall
Method
Single.
Multi.
Know.
Temp.
Abst.
Pref.
Vis.
Judge
F1
Textual Memory Methods
GPT-5.4-mini
Long Context
17.24
10.22
21.48
19.28
18.13
34.01
12.16
19.14
20.50
NaiveRAG
24.85
20.44
16.53
19.02
7.37
8.56
14.5
15.4
10.4
LangMem
21.81
19.21
27.52
29.88
12.00
49.02
14.95
24.94
7.46
Table 4: Question-answering performance of methods on MobileMem-Omni . Scores for task columns are evaluated using LLM-as-a-Judge. Here, “Single.”, “Multi.”, “Know.”, “Temp.”, “Abst.”, “Pref.”, and “Vis.” denote single-hop, multi-hop, knowledge-update, temporal-reasoning, abstention, implicit-preference, and visual-reasoning questions, respectively. “Judge” denotes the overall LLM-Judge score, and F1 measures word overlap with the ground-truth answer.
Figure 10
Figure 9: Radar chart of event type LLM-Judge performance (%). Events are divided by interaction language: Chinese, English; and by event span: short-term, medium-term, long-term.
Figure 10: Illustrative examples from MobileMem-Omni , covering user interactions and multimodal scenarios with diverse image types.
LLM agents increasingly act as personal assistants that must remember a user's profile over months: who they are (attributes), what they routinely do (habits), and what they prefer (preferences), and keep it updated as jobs, routines, and tastes drift. Existing benchmarks evaluate this "memory" ability through short, simplified interactions, missing three core properties of real behavior: the profile is heterogeneous, with attributes, habits, and preferences evolving on different timelines; changes are driven by external context such as seasons and life events; and evidence is rarely stated explicitly, instead scattered across many small actions in different apps that a memory system must infer from. We introduce DynamicMem, a synthetic benchmark that constructs 15 months of activity per user, providing long-term multi-app data that real users' privacy keeps out of reach. It provides user-consistent trajectories averaging 2.2M tokens and 1,772 grounded events per user across 16 applications such as e-commerce, fitness, and social platforms. The profile evolves over this period and is never given explicitly: each attribute, habit, or preference must be inferred from small signals scattered across apps. We evaluate at five quarterly checkpoints to track how systems scale as history grows. Benchmarking five representative systems exposes problems a single accuracy score hides: (i) profile reconstruction degrades with history length while service-task accuracy stays flat, despite both drawing on the same memory; (ii) no system both keeps facts that stay true and replaces facts that change, with errors clustering on preferences and on naming the exact referent; and (iii) over 93% of failures trace to what the memory retrieves, not to the model writing the answer, so the largest room for improvement lies in memory itself. Code: https://wenyaxie023.github.io/DynamicMem/
Wenya Xie, Shengming Zhou, Zelin Li +9
University of Minnesota · University of North Carolina at Charlotte · Johns Hopkins University +2
Long-term memory systems allow LLM agents to preserve information beyond a single context window, but most systems focus on storing and retrieving facts after extraction, leaving the write decision under-specified. What deserves memory can depend on the user's current task, topic, activity, or interaction partner, while uniform extraction applies one notion of importance across these different situations. We formulate this challenge as preference-conditioned write control and introduce AdaMem, which uses adaptive natural-language Memory Policies to personalize what an agent writes to memory. Each policy represents the user's memory preference for a particular interaction context, is updated from periodic feedback, and controls subsequent memory writing. We evaluate this loop in AdaMem-Bench, which assigns different memory preferences to six concurrent interaction personas across five ten-week stories. Across two extraction models and two feedback modes, AdaMem improves average QA accuracy over Mem0 from 80.0% to 84.35% while reducing persistent memory by 9.27%. Our analyses show that explicit feedback helps models learn better memory policies, but current models still struggle to translate those policies into reliably selective writing behavior. AdaMem thus demonstrates the promise of adaptive write control while exposing policy execution as a central limitation of current memory agents. Our code is publicly available: https://github.com/galaxyChen/AdaMem
Long-term memory is crucial for agents in specialized web environments, where success depends on recalling interface affordances, state dynamics, workflows, and recurring failure modes. However, existing memory benchmarks for agents mostly focus on user histories, short traces, or downstream task success, leaving open how to directly evaluate whether memory systems effectively internalize environment-specific experience. To address this gap, we introduce LongMemEval-V2 (LME-V2), a benchmark for evaluating whether memory systems can help agents acquire the experience needed to become knowledgeable colleagues in customized environments. LME-V2 contains 451 manually curated questions covering five core memory abilities for web agents: static state recall, dynamic state tracking, workflow knowledge, environment gotchas, and premise awareness. Questions are paired with history trajectories containing up to 500 trajectories and 115M tokens. We use a context gathering formulation: memory systems consume history trajectories and return compact evidence for downstream question answering. We propose a suite of two memory methods: AgentRunbook-R, an efficient RAG-based memory with knowledge pools for raw state observations, events, and strategy notes, and AgentRunbook-C, which stores trajectories as files and invokes a coding agent to gather evidence in an augmented sandbox. Experiments show that AgentRunbook-C achieves the best performance with 72.5% average accuracy, outperforming the strongest RAG baseline (48.5%) and the off-the-shelf coding agent baseline (69.3%). Despite the strong performance gains, coding agent based methods have high latency costs. While AgentRunbook-C advances the accuracy-latency Pareto frontier, substantial room for improvement remains. Together, these results establish LME-V2 as a challenging testbed for developing long-term memory systems for environment experience.