Shared Worlds, Private Minds: Structured Memory for Long-Form Writing as World Creation
Authors: Qiuyu Tian, Xiaowen Gu, Hang Su, Jianghan Chao, Haojie Yin, Fan Guo, Xin Zhang, Jinjing Shen, Ewing Luo, Youyong Kong, Yingce Xia, Zequn Liu
Organizations: Southeast University, Nanjing, China · Beijing Zhongguancun Academy, Beijing, China · School of Animation and Digital Arts, Communication University of China · Jiangsu Second Normal University · East China Normal University · Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China · Medical Physics, Duke University · ZhuiWen Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China
LLM agents that write long-form fiction need an explicit memory of the evolving storyworld to keep new events consistent with established facts. Such memory must keep heterogeneous narrative information distinct, integrate story developments across granularities, and recover dependencies that a writing request leaves implicit. We present NarraWorld, a structured memory system for long-form writing that treats memory construction as world creation. From a shared evidence-grounded graph, NarraWorld derives four connected views: world facts, per-character beliefs, open developments, and hypothetical branches (possible-world continuations). Hierarchical aggregation with atomic closure consolidates events into scenes, plotlines, and plots, keeping each higher-level node traceable to its constituent source spans. For retrieval, planned reconstruction infers a query's dependencies from the current narrative situation and a preview of memory, then assembles the relevant records within a token budget. Across three writing benchmarks, NarraWorld achieves the strongest aggregate results. Its memory also transfers to situated role-playing and largely preserves recall on a general-purpose long-term memory benchmark, paving the way for agents that sustain coherent storyworlds across diverse narrative tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustrative comparison of conventional memory and NarraWorld. Leo leaves the key in the desk drawer, but Mara moves it into a hollow book while he is away. Conventional memory supplies the updated location, causing Leo to walk directly to the book. NarraWorld preserves both the shared fact that the key has moved and Leo’s private belief that it remains in the drawer, so the continuation is: he checks the drawer, discovers it empty, and asks Mara about the key.
Figure 2: Overview of the NarraWorld continual world-creation cycle. Narrative history is formed into shared-world and character-belief memory, then reconstructed for the next writing act or situated agent action. The resulting continuation becomes the next source unit in the evolving narrative.
Method
CED ↓
WPE ↑
Generation
Continuation
Expansion
Completion
Mem. tokens
NarraWorld
0.185
10,520.4
0.120
0.235
0.098
0.287
3,231
Graphiti
0.385
9,480.5
0.290
0.415
0.310
0.525
5,971
StructMem
0.450
9,215.3
0.355
0.495
0.380
0.570
3,891
Mem0
0.955
7,845.2
0.812
0.985
0.920
1.103
2,179
AriGraph
1.125
7,250.6
0.945
1.180
1.055
1.320
3,050
Hindsight
1.215
6,985.4
1.050
1.265
1.140
1.405
3,280
Table 1: ConStory-Bench consistency results. CED and task-specific errors are lower-is-better; WPE is an auxiliary higher-is-better word-per-error measure.
Table 4Figure 5
Method
EE ↑
EC ↑
PA ↑
CU ↑
CM ↑
UPA ↑
Mem. tokens
NarraWorld
4.22
4.06
4.30
4.57
87.15%
68.85%
704
Mem0
3.98
3.56
3.74
4.25
85.00%
67.31%
344
Graphiti
4.02
3.61
3.82
4.41
86.15%
53.85%
1,215
Hindsight
4.01
3.52
3.78
4.21
84.60%
65.40%
654
AriGraph
3.95
3.60
3.71
4.28
85.35%
68.10%
429
Emotional RAG
3.99
3.55
3.73
4.22
82.10%
67.30%
600
Table 5: RMTBench multi-turn role-playing results ( ↑ ). EE/EC/PA/CU use 1–5 scores; CM/UPA are percentage success rates. Scores are averaged over applicable turns.
Figure 7
Appendix figures & tables18 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
TMAS Quality
Prefix Continuity ↑
Words Generated
Unique
NarraWorld
83.01
87.29
905.6
0.3372
Mem0
81.79
86.98
931.6
0.3582
Graphiti
82.04
85.83
914.7
0.3599
Hindsight
77.87
80.48
920.9
0.3573
AriGraph
76.78
77.88
901.9
0.3595
StructMem
81.80
86.83
936.8
0.3414
Appendix
Table 7: TMAS aggregate and auxiliary diagnostics. TMAS Quality is the arithmetic mean of the four reported dimensions; Prefix Continuity, word counts, and Unique are descriptive measures.
Criterion
Mem0
AriGraph
Hindsight
Graphiti
StructMem
Narra World
Scaffold Only
Full Context
Believable Character Actions
89.07
78.13
80.84
88.69
90.02
91.04
70.96
86.80
Nuanced Characters
87.62
72.27
75.78
88.51
88.22
91.22
69.11
91.53
Pacing
70.93
71.02
72.98
81.29
85.20
87.71
69.09
81.76
World Building
86.00
74.80
79.06
88.29
87.29
87.49
66.56
92.62
Compelling Plot
80.22
75.62
79.91
88.76
85.60
87.25
67.18
88.42
Emotionally Engaging
87.58
80.53
82.38
89.00
89.84
94.60
71.02
91.09
Appendix
Table 8: LSGC final-rubric scores by criterion. Values are direction-corrected macro means over five starters and three runs on a 0–100 scale ( ↑ ); negative criteria are inverted.
Starter
Mem0
AriGraph
Hindsight
Graphiti
StructMem
NarraWorld
Scaffold Only
Full Context
01
79.33
73.32
74.17
85.78
84.83
91.95
74.55
87.26
02
65.67
73.07
75.60
85.36
89.35
86.78
61.74
86.35
03
85.47
71.56
73.36
54.53
86.61
91.05
65.81
88.03
04
82.93
74.26
77.20
84.69
87.52
90.38
84.13
87.48
05
87.51
72.97
74.24
85.11
86.27
91.01
61.85
76.04
Macro mean
80.18
73.03
74.91
79.10
86.92
90.24
69.61
85.03
Appendix
Table 9: LSGC Overall scores by starter, averaged over three runs. Each value equally weights the 16 direction-corrected final criteria.
Method
Overall mean ↑
Run range
Run SD
NarraWorld
90.24
2.59
1.35
Mem0
80.18
5.38
2.69
Graphiti
79.10
3.03
1.51
Hindsight
74.91
4.06
2.10
AriGraph
73.03
3.57
1.90
StructMem
86.92
3.34
1.69
Appendix
Table 10: Run-to-run variability of LSGC Overall scores. Each run is first aggregated over five starters and the 16 criteria; range and SD are computed over the three independent runs. SD is the sample standard deviation.
Continuity of events, characters, perspective and voice, and facts.
Appendix
Table 11: TMAS evaluation subcriteria, each scored from 0 to 4.
Method
Budget
Overall Main
Multi-hop
Single-hop
Temporal
Open-domain
Mem0
2k
0.4736
0.3718
0.5241
0.4919
0.2691
4k
0.4982
0.4047
0.5392
0.5372
0.2834
8k
0.5010
0.4100
0.5410
0.5470
0.2700
12k
0.4683
0.3984
0.5125
0.4758
0.2620
16k
0.4742
0.4047
0.5125
0.4963
0.2682
StructMem
2k
0.4962
0.3565
0.5275
0.5827
0.3435
Appendix
Table 12: LoCoMo budget sensitivity for NarraWorld, StructMem, and Mem0. All scores are higher-is-better.
Figure 5: Conceptual comparison of retrieval paradigms. Query-centric methods interpret the request and match the resulting query against stored memory; both deterministic parsing and question-only LLM planning instantiate this left-hand path. NarraWorld instead conditions narrative planning on an admissible memory preview before expanding and searching for supporting evidence. The diagram summarizes the two information flows.
Retrieval setting
Overall Main
Multi-hop
Single-hop
Temporal
Open-domain
Deterministic Retrieval
0.5963
0.4479
0.6467
0.6513
0.4069
Retrieval w/o Dependency Planning
0.5982
0.4487
0.6488
0.6449
0.4383
Preview-Guided Reconstruction (NarraWorld)
0.6144
0.4580
0.6790
0.6490
0.3920
Appendix
Table 13: LoCoMo retrieval ablation with shared offline W/B/D memory, an 8k final memory budget, and the same answer model. All metrics are higher-is-better.
Retrieval setting
CED ↓
Generation
Continuation
Expansion
Completion
Retrieval w/o Dependency Planning
0.315
0.210
0.380
0.185
0.485
Preview-Guided Reconstruction (NarraWorld)
0.185
0.120
0.235
0.098
0.287
Appendix
Table 14: ConStory-Bench retrieval ablation under matched writing scaffolds, offline memory, memory budgets, and generation settings. All columns report CED ( ↓ ).
Setting
Plot
Creativity
Development
Language
TMAS Quality
Prefix Continuity
Full NarraWorld
78.92
84.90
85.60
82.62
83.01
87.29
Without character beliefs ( B )
76.54
82.15
81.33
81.58
80.40
83.21
Without possible worlds ( H )
77.20
78.85
80.15
82.10
79.57
85.65
Without cross-event organization
74.35
81.12
78.90
80.45
78.70
79.42
Appendix
Table 15: TMAS ablations. All quality dimensions are higher-is-better.
Criterion
Full NarraWorld
Without B
Without H
Without cross-event
Believable Character Actions
91.04
83.33
92.02
82.51
Nuanced Characters
91.22
81.93
90.09
81.16
Pacing
87.71
84.22
85.36
72.44
World Building
87.49
85.96
88.44
74.84
Compelling Plot
87.25
82.49
84.33
76.82
Emotionally Engaging
94.60
87.36
88.27
82.49
Appendix
Table 16: LSGC ablations by criterion. Scores are direction-corrected macro means over 15 samples (5 starters × 3 runs) on a 0–100 scale ( ↑ ).
Setting
Overall mean ↑
Run range
Run SD
Full NarraWorld
90.24
2.59
1.35
Without B
86.04
3.26
1.68
Without H
88.74
1.53
0.80
Without cross-event
81.05
4.02
2.09
Appendix
Table 17: Run-to-run variability for LSGC ablations. Overall means are direction-corrected scores; range and sample SD are computed over the three independent runs after aggregating each run over five starters and 16 criteria.
Setting
Overall Main
Multi-hop
Single-hop
Temporal
Open-domain
NarraWorld (QA view: H excluded)
0.614
0.458
0.679
0.649
0.392
NarraWorld (QA view: H included)
0.570
0.398
0.655
0.559
0.366
Without character beliefs ( B )
0.586
0.415
0.650
0.635
0.370
Without cross-event organization
0.537
0.388
0.618
0.512
0.341
Appendix
Table 18: LoCoMo memory-view and component ablations at the shared 8k budget. The default QA view excludes hypothetical-world records ( H ); the exposed- H condition includes them. Overall Main aggregates the four reported question subsets ( ↑ ).
Method
Human CED ↓
Auto CED ↓
Δ
TP
FP
FN
Precision
Recall
F1
NarraWorld
0.095
0.185
+0.090
1
1
0
50.0%
100.0%
66.7%
Graphiti
0.289
0.385
+0.096
2
2
1
50.0%
66.7%
57.1%
Full Context
0.096
0.200
+0.104
1
1
0
50.0%
100.0%
66.7%
Appendix
Table 19: ConStory-Bench human evaluation and judge alignment on 12 prompts (12 stories per method). Δ is Auto CED minus Human CED. Detection metrics use adjudicated error-subtype presence as the reference.
Method
Character
Plot
World/Coh.
Style/Creat.
Prompt
Human Overall
Auto Overall
NarraWorld
86.00
84.00
86.00
82.00
94.00
84.50
90.24
StructMem
84.00
81.00
82.00
76.00
92.00
80.50
86.92
Full Context
83.00
82.00
88.00
72.00
96.00
80.06
85.03
Appendix
Table 20: LSGC human scores across all five starters on a 0–100 scale ( ↑ ). Auto Overall is shown alongside the human ratings for comparison.
Dimension
Spearman ρ
MAE
Bias
Human–Human MAE
Character
0.52
5.40
+4.89
6.20
Plot
0.48
6.80
+6.42
7.50
World/Coherence
0.61
5.10
+4.67
5.50
Style/Creativity
0.38
7.60
+7.17
9.00
Prompt
0.68
3.20
+2.33
4.20
Overall
0.55
6.20
+5.71
6.48
Appendix
Table 21: LSGC human–judge alignment across 15 stories. Bias is the mean automatic minus human score. Both MAE columns use the 0–100 scale.
Figure 6: Memory and continuation in ConStory-Bench prompt 128, unit 5. Solid colored arrows connect recurring details; dashed arrows connect related developments.
Figure 7: Memory and revelation in LSGC starter-01, Chapter 10. Solid arrows connect recurring content; dashed arrows connect related developments and reinterpretations.
Long-form fiction writers need memory that answers multi-hop questions about evolving story state: who knows a secret and when they learned it, whether an event preceded the narration that revealed it, whether a setup paid off, and how a relationship shifted. General-purpose retrieval and agent-memory systems represent entities and facts but not the narratological structure these questions turn on, so they surface the wrong evidence or none at all. We introduce the Narrative World Model (NWM), a writer-memory system that pairs a narratology-grounded typed temporal-state graph with query-conditioned hybrid retrieval. To measure memory rather than the answerer, we read every system through a single held-constant Opus 4.8 reader over only that system's chapter-safe evidence, on a reproducible public corpus and a validated multi-hop benchmark, and we compare against the strongest existing temporal-knowledge-graph agent-memory framework, Graphiti/Zep (Rasmussen et al., 2025). NWM substantially and significantly outperforms this baseline on multi-hop narratological QA across both corpora, and far exceeds GraphRAG and flat retrieval. The advantage is representational rather than an artifact of extraction: it survives rebuilding the baseline with NWM's own extractor, and traces to its narratology-grounded structure and query-conditioned retrieval, not to graph size or extractor quality.
Mohammad Saifullah, Thomas Kornmaier, Taaha Kazi +3
Long-term LLM agents need persistent memory that can track changing facts and provide relevant evidence across sessions. Existing memory systems often store observations as isolated records, summaries, or indexed fragments, which makes evidence aggregation, fact revision, and memory maintenance difficult. We propose Infini Memory, a maintainable text-based persistent memory architecture that treats agent memory as topic-structured documents. Each topic document serves as a semantic unit for collecting related evidence, preserving metadata, and revising facts over time. New observations are first staged in a buffer and periodically consolidated into coherent textual contexts. At inference time, an agentic retrieval procedure lets the LLM read memory through iterative tool calls rather than a single retrieval step. On MemoryAgentBench, Infini Memory achieves 64.7% overall score. Ablations show that topic-structured maintenance and iterative evidence inspection improve complementary aspects of long-term memory use.
Suozhao Ji, Baodong Wu, Zehao Wang +8
1Infinigence AI · 2Tsinghua University · 3Shanghai Jiaotong University
Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive creative fiction generation, they struggle to maintain narrative consistency and coherent plot lines in long-form stories. In this work, we introduce a unified framework for long-form narrative generation and verification. MAGNET, a multi-agent goal-driven narrative engine for storytelling, generates stories with persona-grounded character agents that propose actions based on a shared world state and evolving story goals, while ATLAS is a graph-based pipeline that compares scene-level world representations across a generated story to detect hallucinations. By evaluating MAGNET using an LLM editor, pairwise rubric scoring, and ATLAS, we show that our framework produces coherent narratives compared to single-model prompting and IBSEN. At 100 pages, MAGNET reduced annotations and hallucinations by 41 and 50%, respectively, compared to the single model baseline and by 34 and 45%, respectively, compared to IBSEN, with pairwise rubric evaluation showing similar results. These results suggest that long-form narratives can emerge from explicit world-state tracking and goal-driven multi-agent generation, providing a foundation for controllable and structurally coherent long-form narrative generation.
Aayush Aluru, Chloe Ho, Muhammad Hammouri +5
Pocket FM · Princeton University · University of Michigan +2