Abstract
An adequate conversational answer may differ from a short or incomplete benchmark reference. To measure adequacy against the recorded history we prefer source-aware grading, in which the judge checks the reference against the full source before assessing system-blinded answers; original reference-only grading is reported alongside. With a local Qwen 3.8 27B Q4_K_M reader and a 24,000-token evidence ceiling, MemStrata CL1 scores 475/500 (95.0%) on LongMemEval-S and 1,400/1,540 (90.91%) on LoCoMo categories 1-4 under source-aware GPT-5.5 adjudication, against 463/500 (92.6%) and 1,205/1,540 (78.25%) under reference-only grading of the same answers. It preserves a retrieval backbone and adds nonduplicated, dated, speaker-attributed source spans. A same-reader full-history control with about 4.7 times the evidence scores 464/500 reference-only and 470/500 (94.0%) source-aware; neither difference is decisive. Keyword-only selection at the same budget scores 425, and a matched-reader Letta arm 438. On LongMemEval-M, where the packet holds about 1.6% of each history, MemStrata CL1 scores 427/500, with losses concentrated in multi-session and temporal questions. On 300 BEAM-1M questions it outscores dense retrieval, 0.738 to 0.706 (Wilcoxon p = 0.011). A same-seed replay of unchanged requests changed 1.5-2.3% of labels. On identical packets GLM 5.3 flash is non-inferior within 3 points (462 versus 463); Muse Spark 1.3 did not show non-inferiority on 269 questions. None of four pre-registered interventions met all of its registered advancement or feasibility criteria. Signed read-side artifacts support inspection but do not regenerate the private retrieval pipeline. The superiority of source-aware grading to human adjudication is not established, and development exposure, automated-judge dependence and the absence of held-out data preclude an independent-replication or leaderboard claim.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Explore similar work
Sep 29, 2026cs.CL
We evaluate an auditable long-term memory system on LongMemEval-S. Its retrieval chain uses hybrid candidate retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, coverage-first packet compilation, and deterministic reasoning scaffolds; an LLM is used only as a replaceable final reader. The chain places all gold sessions in the candidate pool for 468/470 answerable questions and produces gold-complete packets for 462/470. With a Claude Opus reader called through an unpinned CLI alias, two 500-question passes score 479/500 and 475/500 under GPT-4o. The 72 answerable knowledge-update rows used a substantively modified scoring prompt whose effect under the official text has not been measured. The pair straddles Chronos High's published 478/500; differences in reader generation, scoring prompt, and possibly data version, plus within-system variance, establish neither superiority nor equivalence. A grok-4.6-high reader on the same packets scores 476/474, while a maximum-reasoning-effort agentic variant regresses to 461/465. The headline passes differ on eight verdict-flip rows. A second judge agrees with the headline judge on 493/500 rows (98.6%) in each pass and scores both passes 472/500; the official judge also flips three verdicts when re-scoring byte-identical pass-1 answers. Negative controls rejected a verifier that repaired three wrong drafts but broke eleven correct drafts. All components were developed on the same 500 questions, with no held-out evaluation or independent human adjudication; retrieval and scaffold method sources and transcript-derived audits are held; and the headline reader received extra operator context, its complete requests were not retained, and MCP tool availability is unresolved. We release materialized packets, scaffolds, reader outputs, judge verdicts, and controls for inspection and re-scoring.
Christopher J. Chanhnourack
Centennial Defense Systems (Archivist)
Apr 23, 2026cs.CL
Large language model assistants are increasingly expected to retain and reason over information accumulated across many sessions. We introduce EngramaBench, a benchmark for long-term conversational memory built around five personas, one hundred multi-session conversations, and one hundred fifty queries spanning factual recall, cross-space integration, temporal reasoning, adversarial abstention, and emergent synthesis. We evaluate Engrama, a graph-structured memory system, against GPT-4o full-context prompting and Mem0, an open-source vector-retrieval memory system. All three use the same answering model (GPT-4o), isolating the effect of memory architecture. GPT-4o full-context achieves the highest composite score (0.6186), while Engrama scores 0.5367 globally but is the only system to score higher than full-context prompting on cross-space reasoning (0.6532 vs. 0.6291, n=30). Mem0 is cheapest but substantially weaker (0.4809). Ablations reveal that the components driving Engrama's cross-space advantage trade off against global composite score, exposing a systems-level tension between structured memory specialization and aggregate optimization.
Julian Acuna
Apr 30, 2026cs.CV
Long-term conversational memory requires retrieving evidence scattered across multiple sessions, yet single-pass retrieval fails on temporal and multi-hop questions. Existing iterative methods refine queries via generated content or document-level signals, but none explicitly diagnoses the evidence gap, namely what is missing from the accumulated retrieval set, leaving query refinement untargeted. We present EviMem, combining IRIS (Iterative Retrieval via Insufficiency Signals), a closed-loop framework that detects evidence gaps through sufficiency evaluation, diagnoses what is missing, and drives targeted query refinement, with LaceMem (Layered Architecture for Conversational Evidence Memory), a coarse-to-fine memory hierarchy supporting fine-grained gap diagnosis. On LoCoMo, EviMem improves Judge Accuracy over MIRIX on temporal (73.3% to 81.6%) and multi-hop (65.9% to 85.2%) questions at 4.5x lower latency. Code: https://github.com/AIGeeksGroup/EviMem.
Yuyang Li, Yime He, Zeyu Zhang +1
The Australian National University · UNSW Sydney