Long-horizon agents need memory that identifies relevant experience, resolves revisions, and exposes checkable provenance. We present ECHO (Embodied Context and History Orchestration), an auditable memory architecture and service prototype inspired by episodic encoding, consolidation, contextual reinstatement, reconsolidation, and executive control. This is functional inspiration, not neural equivalence; the empirical analysis focuses on retrieval and context construction. Development runs reach 96.29% Hit@10 and 73.64% turn Recall@5 on 1,536 LoCoMo category 1-4 questions, and 97.60% Hit@10, 88.84% turn Recall@5, and 88.71% session Recall@5 on all 500 LongMemEval-S questions. A five-history BEAM gate fails, and in a separate matched 91-question QA sample Mem0 OSS scores 64.84% versus ECHO's 41.76% (exact McNemar p = 0.00107), with a history-cluster interval crossing zero. A post-hoc audit found source-specific phrases in the query-expansion rules. Although no gold answer field entered the runtime, expansion-enabled retrieval scores are therefore descriptive development measurements, not independent confirmation.
Figures & tables
Cognitive principle
Engineering commitment
Episodic encoding
Immutable, source-ordered experience traces
Semantic consolidation
Typed state projected separately from raw episodes
Reconsolidation
Append revisions; never erase the prior trace
Contextual recall
Cue-driven candidates resolved in valid/known time
Executive control
Operation routing, selective expression, and abstention
TABLE I: Functional cognitive inspiration and testable system commitments.
Fig. 1: ECHO at a glance. The upper lane translates a functional cognitive loop into the auditable memory plane below; colors distinguish experience, projected state, temporal authority, discovery, provenance, and realization. Solid arrows are runtime flow and dashed arrows are testable correspondences. The feedback loop admits only new experience or authorized correction, never an unverified retrieval result.
Fig. 2: Target ECHO runtime architecture and current integration boundary. Solid arrows denote the intended synchronous authority path; dashed arrows denote asynchronous projection, observability, and authorized updates. The empirical analysis focuses on retrieval and context construction. Cognitive labels are functional correspondences, not claims of anatomical or neural equivalence.
Operation
Internal requirement
Final surface
Fact
Minimal sufficient support
Minimal supported answer
Count
Complete member set, deduplicated by identity, and verified count
Numeric count; unit only if needed
List
Complete deduplicated set; requested order retained
Requested items only
Temporal arithmetic
Both endpoints, normalized unit, verified calculation
Requested duration or date only
Temporal lookup
Valid/known-time view and supported target state
Time-scoped fact only
TABLE II: Internal and visible realization contracts.
Dataset
Reg./eval.
Hist.
Scope
LoCoMo
1,986/1,982
10
categories 1–4 primary; category 5 separate
LongMemEval-S
500/500
500
all six released question types
BEAM development
20/18
1
one 100K row; pilot only
BEAM fresh gate
91/89
5
preregistered histories; retrieval only
TABLE III: Frozen ECHO retrieval scopes. Registered/evaluated counts are both shown to prevent denominator drift.
Dataset scope
Eval.
Hit@10 (%)
Turn R.@5 (%)
Turn R.@10 (%)
Sess. R.@5 (%)
Sess. R.@10 (%)
LoCoMo cat. 1–4
1,536
96.29
73.64
84.48
–
–
LongMemEval-S
500
97.60
88.84
91.74
88.71
93.46
TABLE IV: Cutoff-aligned evidence retrieval, not QA accuracy. Hit@10 is question-level; turn/session R.@5 and R.@10 are micro annotated-unit coverage recomputed from the same frozen Top-10 rows.
Fig. 3: Question-level hits conceal incomplete evidence coverage. The gap is largest on the local BEAM pilot. LoCoMo uses the category-1–4 primary slice.
History row
Evaluated
Hit@10 (%)
Turn R. (%)
Sess. R. (%)
MRR
6
18
94.44
47.06
51.11
.6308
16
18
94.44
58.18
67.50
.7102
12
18
61.11
22.99
40.00
.4611
9
17
82.35
44.44
58.97
.6123
5
18
61.11
42.62
46.67
.4894
Aggregate
89
78.65
40.80
52.34
.5804
TABLE V: Preregistered fresh-history BEAM generalization for ECHO Top-10 retrieval. The prespecified gate required at least 80 evaluated questions, zero projection failures, Hit@10 ≥85% , turn recall ≥50% , and session recall ≥60% .
Sample
n
ECHO correct (%)
Mem0 correct (%)
ΔECHO−Mem0 (pp)
exact p
LoCoMo
65
29 (44.62; 33.17–56.66)
46 (70.77; 58.80–80.42)
-26.15
.00333
LongMemEval
6
3 (50.00; 18.76–81.24)
2 (33.33; 9.68–70.00)
+16.67
1.00000
BEAM local 100K
20
6 (30.00; 14.55–51.90)
11 (55.00; 34.21–74.18)
-25.00
.12500
All sampled questions
91
38 (41.76; 32.16–52.02)
59 (64.84; 54.61–73.86)
-23.08
.00107
TABLE VI: Matched sampled end-to-end QA. Both arms use the same binary Qwen answerer/judge protocol. Parentheses contain Wilson 95% intervals. Mem0 provenance retrieval metrics remain unobservable and are not assigned zero.
Source/system
Dataset
Reported metric
Score
Protocol distinction
Mem0 managed platform
LoCoMo
platform score
92.5
Top-200, production stack with proprietary optimizations
Mem0 managed platform
LongMemEval
platform score
94.4
same managed stack; not OSS and not ECHO retrieval recall
Mem0 managed platform
BEAM-1M / 10M
platform score
64.1 / 48.6
official larger scales, not the local one-row 100K pilot
Mem0 paper, base
LoCoMo
overall LLM-judge
66.88±0.15
GPT-4o-mini-era paper protocol and averaged judge runs
Mem0 paper, graph
LoCoMo
overall LLM-judge
68.44±0.17
graph memory; different storage, reader, judge, and cutoff
Zep / full context
LoCoMo
overall LLM-judge
65.99/72.90
author-reported baselines in the Mem0 paper
TABLE VII: Primary-source Mem0 numbers shown for orientation only. None is metric-compatible with ECHO retrieval in Table IV or the matched sampled QA in Table VI .
Variant
Hit@10 (%)
Turn R. (%)
Sess. R. (%)
MRR
Mean query (ms)
Mean ctx. (KiB)
Full v11
100.00
66.04
78.95
0.811
927.8
30.6
Dense-only
100.00
56.60
65.79
0.585
796.4
28.3
Lexical-only
83.33
50.94
78.95
0.463
825.6
36.2
No query expansion
83.33
39.62
60.53
0.644
427.5
30.5
No session-support weight
100.00
62.26
78.95
0.784
994.3
30.5
TABLE VIII: Load-bearing BEAM-100K retrieval ablations ( n=18 evaluated questions). Dense-only disables lexical and entity routes; lexical-only disables dense and entity routes. Latency includes local query embedding. Results are a paired local diagnostic, not a BEAM-1M/10M claim.
Fig. 4: Normalized worker throughput on the fixed Windows/WSL2 Docker host. Stateful TopicBucket saturates near four workers; pure C++ ROSE reranking continues scaling. These are worker-path measurements, not QA accuracy.
Long-term memory supports agents across sessions. Repeated retrieval and write-back can let one historical claim occupy multiple retrieval positions and influence current answers without independent evidence. Existing work examines retrieval, updating, and question answering, leaving same-source record accumulation and post-correction persistence underexplored. Motivated by research in social cognition and memory psychology on repeated exposure, retrieval, and revision, we define Memory Echo as the excess retrieval exposure gained by historical information from the same source without additional independent evidence, and introduce MEchoBench to evaluate its emergence, correction resistance, persistence, and effect on answers. To address this phenomenon, we introduce the Family--Provenance--Authority framework (FPA). Specifically, FPA selects one representative per source family, conditions the eligibility of old records for the answer context on verified corrections, and constrains final answers with authoritative evidence. In paired replay on 190 fixed questions across four memory frameworks, FPA raises accuracy from 0.825 to 0.920 with DeepSeek V4 Flash and from 0.782 to 0.916 with Kimi K2.6; mean Decision Contamination Effect falls from 0.106 to 0.030 and from 0.109 to 0.038, respectively. These results show that agent memory can preserve traceable history without allowing repeated historical information to govern current decisions. The code is available at https://github.com/OrcasSam/memory-echo-benchmark.
Yufeng Li, Sheng Yao, Peng Zeng +5
East China Normal University, Shanghai, China · University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA · Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China +1
AI agents that persist across sessions need memory they can retrieve, audit, update, and erase. Existing memory systems often collapse source evidence, extracted facts, retrieved context, and answer policy into one opaque prompt path, making failures difficult to diagnose: a wrong answer may come from missing evidence, unsupported extraction, stale state, retrieval loss, or answer-model behavior. We present Eywa, a provenance-grounded memory architecture built around evidence before belief. Eywa stores immutable source evidence before deriving canonical facts, validates extracted memories against typed signals and source support, and retrieves bounded memory context through a deterministic multi-route read path with zero LLM calls inside retrieval. Retrieved context is returned separately from answer instructions, allowing the same memory substrate to be evaluated across frontier, budget, and local answer models. Under a frozen, artifact-recorded retrieval configuration, Eywa reaches 90.19% judge accuracy on the LoCoMo C1-C4 split with Claude Sonnet 4.6 write and QA roles. On LongMemEval-S, it reaches 88.2% retrieval-sufficiency accuracy. On BEAM, a 700-question technical-memory stress benchmark, it reaches 81.45% mean nugget score and 85.29% pass@score >= 0.5. Full per-question artifacts, including questions, gold answers, model answers, retrieved context, and labels, are published at https://eywa.to/research.
Long-horizon agents can archive large histories, but future answers still incur retrieval, rereading, and context costs. When retained memory misses answer-relevant evidence, the system must return to larger portions of the raw history. We study budgeted evidence survival: before the query is known, which source evidence should be retained so that it remains recoverable and usable under a fixed retained source-evidence token budget? We instantiate this setting as Budgeted Pre-Query Retention, where memory is written during ingestion and later read without access to the full raw stream. We introduce EMBER, a learned retention policy that constructs a compact, source-backed evidence state. EMBER stores evidence capsules: verbatim source excerpts paired with retrieval keys and update metadata, preserving both grounding and read-time access. Post-query outcome feedback trains the writer to preserve evidence across the ingestion-retrieval-answer chain. On LongMemEval-RR, our LongMemEval-derived retained-evidence protocol, EMBER-14B reaches 0.3017 F1 at the 8192-token retained-evidence comparison point, compared with 0.1765 for the strongest non-EMBER budgeted baseline. Across retained source-evidence budgets, EMBER improves F1, Retain-Recall, and Read-Recall, indicating that long-horizon memory depends on retaining evidence within the budget rather than rereading larger histories.