Memory is a core component of conversational agents, enabling coherent and context-aware behavior over long interactions. Recent approaches commonly rely on LLM-based memory construction, where raw interactions are rewritten into structured memory units and later retrieved via a RAG pipeline. While effective in controlled settings, we show that this paradigm breaks down in long-horizon, high-entropy conversations: memory construction becomes increasingly lossy and unstable as context length and information complexity grow, and incurs prohibitive cost due to repeated LLM invocation. To address these limitations, we propose Threader, a memory system that shifts the focus from memory construction to efficient, structure-aware access over raw interactions. Instead of rewriting interactions, Threader preserves them as first-class memory, organizes them into topic-coherent segments via lightweight incremental segmentation, and enables accurate retrieval through multi-view representation. At query time, it performs multi-signal retrieval that combines segment-level access with localized evidence matching, ensuring both completeness and coherence. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Threader consistently improves answer accuracy and evidence recall, while significantly reducing the memory construction overhead.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Limitations of existing LLM-based memory construction methods. As interaction length and information entanglement increase (simulated via session concatenation with LongMemEval), representative methods exhibit (a) degraded QA accuracy and shrinking memory size, (b) increasing loss of query-relevant evidence, and (c) substantial token amplification during memory construction.
Figure 2: Overview of Threader . It incrementally segments interaction streams into topic-coherent units, encodes them with multi-view representations, and retrieves related evidence with multi-signals.
Method
SS-User
SS-Assi.
SS-Pref.
Multi-S.
Know.-U.
Temp-R.
Overall
GPT-5-nano
Self-RAG
87.14
94.64
43.33
56.39
73.08
73.68
71.40
HippoRAG2
71.43
94.64
53.33
60.15
76.92
69.92
70.40
Mem0
80.00
46.43
26.67
39.85
69.23
58.65
55.00
MemU
81.43
78.57
43.33
55.64
53.85
68.42
64.20
A-Mem
84.29
82.14
20.00
30.83
56.41
27.82
46.60
Table 1: Main results on LongMemEval. Threader retrieves the top-12 segments for LongMemEval. SS-User, SS-Assi., SS-Pref., Multi-S., Know.-U., and Temp.-R. denote Single-Session-User, Single-Session-Assistant, Single-Session-Preference, Multi-Session, Knowledge-Update, and Temporal-Reasoning, respectively. Results are grouped by backbone. Within each backbone block, the best result in each column is shown in bold , the second-best distinct result is underlined .
Method
Generalize
Preference
User-
User-
Update-
New-
Preference
Overall
-New-Scn.
-Align
Shared
Mentioned
Reason
Ideas
Evolution
GPT-5-nano
Self-RAG
29.82
52.73
16.28
47.06
67.68
38.71
48.20
41.60
HippoRAG2
56.14
65.45
53.49
70.59
69.70
39.78
51.08
55.35
Mem0
45.61
43.64
31.01
47.06
70.71
39.78
55.40
47.88
MemU
35.09
41.82
47.29
41.18
58.59
27.96
51.80
45.33
Table 2: Main results on PersonaMem. Threader retrieves the top-8 segments for PersonaMem. Generalize-New-Scn., Preference-Align, User-Shared, User-Mentioned, Update-Reason, New-Ideas, and Preference-Evolution denote generalizing-to-new-scenarios, provide-preference-aligned-recommendations, recalling-user-shared-facts, recalling-facts-mentioned-by-the-user, recalling-reasons-behind-previous-updates, suggesting-new-ideas, and tracking-full-preference-evolution, respectively. Results are grouped by backbone. Within each backbone block, the best result in each column is shown in bold , the second-best distinct result is underlined .
Table 3: Ablation study on the key design axes of Threader . We evaluate the impact of segmentation, multi-view representation, multi-signal retrieval, and retrieval granularity on answer accuracy and evidence recall under Top-5 and Top-12 settings. Full-R denotes the fraction of queries with complete evidence coverage, and Mean-R denotes average evidence recall. Emb.-User, Emb.-Asst., and Emb.-Full correspond to using only user, assistant, or full interaction views, respectively.
Figure 3: Top-K sensitivity analysis on LongMemEval and PersonaMem.
Method
Memory Construction
Query-Time
Time
#Calls
In Tok.
Out Tok.
Cost $
Latency
#Calls
In Tok.
Out Tok.
Cost $
Self-RAG
13.18
0
0
0
0
93.52
6.55
2.3 K
0.4 K
0.0016
HippoRAG2
110.84
95.26
249 K
38 K
0.1604
51.02
3.03
17.5 K
0.7 K
0.0081
Mem0
1239.62
47.94
231 K
64 K
0.1948
8.38
0
0
0
0
MemU
2448.94
305.65
936 K
121 K
0.5680
199.47
19.09
16.1 K
2.5 K
0.0112
A-Mem
2032.45
1415.19
2107 K
79 K
0.9692
12.35
1.00
9.9 K
0.9 K
0.0054
Table 4: Cost comparison of agent memory systems across offline memory construction and online query-time serving. MemOS is omitted due to its black-box interface, which prevents reliable cost attribution. We report construction cost per 100K input tokens and query-time cost per query, covering runtime/latency (s), LLM calls, input and output token consumption, and monetary cost ($). The best and worst reported results are highlighted in green and red , respectively.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
# QA
# Sample
Sess./Sample
Tok./Sess.
Turn/Sess.
Tok./Turn
LongMemEval
500
500
47.7
2,160.73
5.12
421.88
PersonaMem
589
37
1
26,165.38
174.65
149.82
Appendix
Table 5: Dataset statistics. We report the number of QA pairs, the number of samples, and dialogue-level statistics for each benchmark. All metrics with “/” denote average values, including sessions per sample, tokens per session, turns per session, and tokens per turn.
Name
Setting
Sessions / Sample
Tokens / Session
LME
Original
47.65
2,311.21
LME-M2
2 session concatenation
23.55
4,676.53
LME-M4
4 session concatenation
11.50
9,576.78
LME-M8
8 session concatenation
5.48
20,085.12
Appendix
Table 6: Statistics of the constructed motivation data. We progressively concatenate adjacent sessions in LongMemEval to create longer-session settings. The number of QA examples and the total dialogue content are kept unchanged, while the average number of sessions per sample decreases and the average session length increases.
Figure 4: Limitations of existing LLM-based memory construction methods (MemU). As interaction length and information entanglement increase (simulated via session concatenation with LongMemEval), MemU exhibits (a) degraded QA accuracy and shrinking memory size, (b) increasing loss of query-relevant evidence.
Figure 5: Case study of memory degradation. As the concatenation factor increases, Mem0 and MemU construct fewer memory items and fewer words, and progressively lose query-relevant evidence. MI denotes the number of memory items, and W denotes the total number of words in the constructed memory.
Figure 6: Case study of uncontrolled memory retention. Rewrite-based memory construction does not preserve evidence monotonically across session-granularity settings. The same evidence may be covered, partially retained, or missing under different concatenation factors. The emoji markers denote Covered , Partial , and Missing , respectively. MI denotes the number of memory items, and W denotes the total number of words in the constructed memory.
Base Model
Threshold ( τ )
LongMemEval Dataset (50 Samples)
F_1↑
W- F_1↑
BOR →1
Pur. ↑
Cov. ↑
BERT Family
BERT
0.15
0.497
0.600
1.266
0.777
0.682
BERT
0.20
0.483
0.594
1.169
0.763
0.708
BERT
0.25
0.475
0.592
1.100
0.754
0.727
RoBERTa Family
Appendix
Table 7: Performance comparison of varying architectures and thresholds on a randomly sampled subset of 50 evaluation instances from the LongMemEval dataset. The arrows ( ↑ , →1 ) indicate the optimal direction for each metric. Best and second-best results within each model family are highlighted in bold and underlined , respectively. The highlighted row indicates our final selected segmenter.
Relative training size
F1 ↑
BOR →1
50%
0.399
0.914
80%
0.471
1.114
90%
0.454
1.054
100% (original)
0.483
1.169
110%
0.486
1.247
120%
0.478
1.205
Appendix
Table 8: Effect of training data size on segmentation quality. Training sizes are expressed relative to the original setting. The original configuration is shown in bold.
Class ratio (C:S)
F1 ↑
BOR →1
1:1
0.421
2.228
2:1
0.477
1.276
3:1
0.484
1.511
4:1 (original)
0.483
1.169
Appendix
Table 9: Effect of the training class ratio on segmentation quality. C and S denote CONTINUE and SEGMENT , respectively. The original configuration is shown in bold.
Supervision setting
F1 ↑
BOR →1
Hard-only
0.226
0.505
Hard:Soft =2:1
0.321
0.674
Hard:Soft =1:2
0.459
0.816
Soft-only
0.472
1.907
Original mix ( 0.902:1 )
0.483
1.169
Appendix
Table 10: Effect of the hard/soft supervision mixture on segmentation quality under fixed training hyperparameters. The original hard-to-soft ratio is 0.902:1 . The original configuration is shown in bold.
Method
SS-User
SS-Assi.
SS-Pref.
Multi-S.
Know.-U.
Temp-R.
Overall
Qwen3.5-plus
Self-RAG
90.00
94.64
60.00
69.17
79.49
80.45
79.00
HippoRAG2
77.14
96.43
80.00
72.93
88.46
71.43
78.60
Mem0
72.86
21.43
26.67
40.60
48.72
56.39
47.60
MemU
98.57
82.14
40.00
82.71
87.18
45.86
73.20
A-Mem
92.86
98.21
26.67
54.89
78.21
64.66
69.60
Appendix
Table 11: Main results on LongMemEval with Qwen-family models. Threader retrieves the top-12 segments for LongMemEval. SS-User, SS-Assi., SS-Pref., Multi-S., Know.-U., and Temp.-R. denote Single-Session-User, Single-Session-Assistant, Single-Session-Preference, Multi-Session, Knowledge-Update, and Temporal-Reasoning, respectively. Results are grouped by backbone. Within each backbone block, the best result in each column is shown in bold , the second-best distinct result is underlined .
Method
Generalize
Preference
User-
User-
Update-
New-
Preference
Overall
-New-Scn.
-Align
Shared
Mentioned
Reason
Ideas
Evolution
Qwen3.5-plus
Self-RAG
29.82
63.64
10.85
52.94
77.78
59.14
72.66
52.29
HippoRAG2
78.95
80.00
79.84
58.82
83.84
46.24
74.10
73.17
Mem0
64.91
54.55
37.21
58.82
83.84
39.78
86.33
61.97
MemU
61.40
72.73
81.39
64.71
85.86
38.71
76.26
70.97
Appendix
Table 12: Main results on PersonaMem with Qwen-family models. Threader retrieves the top-8 segments for PersonaMem. Generalize-New-Scn., Preference-Align, User-Shared, User-Mentioned, Update-Reason, New-Ideas, and Preference-Evolution denote generalizing-to-new-scenarios, provide-preference-aligned-recommendations, recalling-user-shared-facts, recalling-facts-mentioned-by-the-user, recalling-reasons-behind-previous-updates, suggesting-new-ideas, and tracking-full-preference-evolution, respectively. Results are grouped by backbone. Within each backbone block, the best result in each column is shown in bold , and the second-best distinct result is underlined .
Method
Accuracy (%)
Threader w/o multi-view representation
78.4
Threader (full pipeline)
81.2
Appendix
Table 13: Full-pipeline ablation of multi-view representation on LongMemEval , with K1 reduced from 40 to 10. Both variants retain BM25 retrieval, message-level dense scoring, and cross-encoder reranking.
Table 14: Ablation study on the key design axes of Threader on Personamem. We evaluate the impact of segmentation, multi-view representation, retrieval signals, and retrieval granularity on answer accuracy. Emb.-User, Emb.-Asst., and Emb.-Full correspond to using only user, assistant, or full interaction views, respectively.
(wu,wa,wf)
Top-5
Top-8
Top-10
Top-12
Full-R
Mean-R
Full-R
Mean-R
Full-R
Mean-R
Full-R
Mean-R
(0.3,0.35,0.35)
0.6596
0.7644
0.7638
0.8464
0.8064
0.8758
0.8489
0.9041
(0.4,0.3,0.3)
0.6660
0.7666
0.7723
0.8541
0.8128
0.8807
0.8617
0.9129
(0.5,0.25,0.25)
0.6745
0.7734
0.7723
0.8534
0.8170
0.8817
0.8681
0.9165
(0.6,0.2,0.2)
0.6553
0.7625
0.7723
0.8534
0.8213
0.8832
0.8638
0.9141
(0.7,0.15,0.15)
0.6511
0.7509
0.7702
0.8524
0.8277
0.8856
0.8596
0.9141
Appendix
Table 15: Segment-view weight analysis. We evaluate different dense segment-view weights (wu,wa,wf) using segment-level dense retrieval only, with BM25 matching and message-level dense matching disabled. Full-R denotes the fraction of queries with complete evidence coverage, and Mean-R denotes average evidence recall.
Figure 7: Fusion weight sensitivity analysis. Performance heatmaps of different BM25 interpolation weights β and final fusion weights α under Top-5 and Top-12 retrieval settings.
Memory method
Response model
SS-Pref.
New-Ideas
Preference Evolution
Overall
Mem0
GPT-5-mini
26.67
27.96
66.91
48.47
Mem0
GPT-5.6-sol
46.67
48.39
58.99
53.82
EverMemOS
GPT-5-mini
96.67
26.88
64.03
54.58
EverMemOS
GPT-5.6-sol
100.00
59.14
79.14
74.43
Threader
GPT-5-mini
96.67
45.16
63.31
60.69
Threader
GPT-5.6-sol
100.00
65.59
77.70
75.95
Appendix
Table 16: Accuracy (%) on three selected abstraction-related question types. SS-Pref. is from LongMemEval; New-Ideas and Preference Evolution are from PersonaMem. Overall denotes accuracy pooled across the 262 questions in these three categories. GPT-5.6-sol uses maximum reasoning effort. The best result in each metric is shown in bold.
Long-term conversational large language model (LLM) agents require memory systems that can recover relevant evidence from historical interactions without overwhelming the answer stage with irrelevant context. However, existing memory systems, including hierarchical ones, still often rely solely on vector similarity for retrieval. It tends to produce bloated evidence sets: adding many superficially similar dialogue turns yields little additional recall, but lowers retrieval precision, increases answer-stage context cost, and makes retrieved memories harder to inspect and manage. To address this, we propose HiGMem (Hierarchical and LLM-Guided Memory System), a two-level event-turn memory system that allows LLMs to use event summaries as semantic anchors to predict which related turns are worth reading. This allows the model to inspect high-level event summaries first and then focus on a smaller set of potentially useful turns, providing a concise and reliable evidence set through reasoning, while avoiding the retrieval overhead that would be excessively high compared to vector retrieval. On the LoCoMo10 benchmark, HiGMem achieves the best F1 on four of five question categories and improves adversarial F1 from 0.54 to 0.78 over A-Mem, while retrieving an order of magnitude fewer turns. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/ZeroLoss-Lab/HiGMem.
Shuqi Cao, Jingyi He, Fei Tan
East China Normal University, Shanghai, China · Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
LLM agents lack persistent memory, causing conversations to reset each session and preventing personalization over time. We present Lyzr Cognis, a unified memory architecture for conversational AI agents that addresses this limitation through a multi-stage retrieval pipeline. Cognis combines a dual-store backend pairing OpenSearch BM25 keyword matching with Matryoshka vector similarity search, fused via Reciprocal Rank Fusion. Its context-aware ingestion pipeline retrieves existing memories before extraction, enabling intelligent version tracking that preserves full memory history while keeping the store consistent. Temporal boosting enhances time-sensitive queries, and a BGE-2 cross-encoder reranker refines final result quality. We evaluate Cognis on two independent benchmarks -- LoCoMo and LongMemEval -- across eight answer generation models, demonstrating state-of-the-art performance on both. The system is open-source and deployed in production serving conversational AI applications.
Existing conversational memory systems rely on complex hierarchical summarization or reinforcement learning to manage long-term dialogue history, yet remain vulnerable to context dilution as conversations grow. In this work, we offer a different perspective: the primary bottleneck may lie not in memory architecture, but in the Signal Sparsity Effect within the latent knowledge manifold. Through controlled experiments, we identify two key phenomena: Decisive Evidence Sparsity, where relevant signals become increasingly isolated with longer sessions, leading to sharp degradation in aggregation-based methods; and Dual-Level Redundancy, where both inter-session interference and intra-session conversational filler introduce large amounts of non-informative content, hindering effective generation. Motivated by these insights, we propose \method, a minimalist framework that brings conversational memory back to basics, relying solely on retrieval and generation via Turn Isolation Retrieval (TIR) and Query-Driven Pruning (QDP). TIR replaces global aggregation with a max-activation strategy to capture turn-level signals, while QDP removes redundant sessions and conversational filler to construct a compact, high-density evidence set. Extensive experiments on multiple benchmarks demonstrate that \method achieves robust performance across diverse settings, consistently outperforming strong baselines while maintaining high efficiency in tokens and latency, establishing a new minimalist baseline for conversational memory.
Yuqian Wu, Wei Chen, Zhengjun Huang +5
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · National University of Singapore