Long-term memory enables LLM agents to reuse past experiences, yet retrieving relevant memories does not necessarily provide sufficient evidence for answering a query. Essential information may remain fragmented across memory records, obscured by abstraction, or disconnected from the relations required for reasoning. We identify this relevance-sufficiency gap and propose QEMem, a framework that reformulates memory utilization as the construction of query-specific evidence sets, shifting the focus from individual retrieval relevance to collective evidential support. QEMem integrates three complementary mechanisms: query-guided discovery retrieves evidence across multiple memory granularities; source-grounded reification organizes it into structured ViewCards with explicit evidential roles and source references; and sufficiency-guided refinement selectively recovers missing information. Operating on existing memory stores without modifying memory formation, QEMem achieves 91.43% LLM-judge accuracy on LoCoMo with Claude Opus 4.5, outperforming the strongest evaluated baseline, MemR3, by 7.6 percentage points and NEMORI by 10.7 points under a shared memory store. Further analyses demonstrate improved evidence coverage and strong performance on questions requiring cross-session evidence integration.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of QEMem. The framework addresses the relevance–sufficiency gap by moving from individually relevant memories to collectively sufficient evidence. Given a query, QEMem discovers candidate evidence across multiple memory granularities, constructs source-grounded evidence representations, and iteratively refines the evidence set based on identified information gaps. The resulting query-specific evidence set supports grounded answer generation.
Claude Haiku 4.5
Claude Opus 4.5
Method
Multi-Hop
Temporal
Open
Single-Hop
Overall
Multi-Hop
Temporal
Open
Single-Hop
Overall
NEMORI
69.50
71.65
50.00
83.71
76.49
70.92
77.88
61.46
87.28
80.71
Mem0
65.25
61.68
52.08
74.67
68.83
62.77
68.85
62.50
80.26
73.57
A-Mem
50.35
32.09
44.79
68.73
56.23
51.77
29.28
48.96
73.60
58.83
LightMem
63.48
81.62
57.29
78.24
74.94
62.41
84.42
59.38
80.14
76.49
SimpleMem
78.72
79.13
53.12
80.62
78.25
78.01
81.62
59.38
84.54
81.17
Table 1: Main results on LoCoMo across two Claude backbones, measured by LLM-judge accuracy (%). All memory stores are constructed using Claude Opus 4.5, while query-time processing uses the indicated backbone. Bold and underlined values indicate the best and second-best results within each backbone, respectively.
Figure 2: Evidence coverage and answer accuracy on LoCoMo. (a) Complete coverage of annotated supporting turns. Retrieval-source coverage ( R ) includes turns belonging to retrieved episodes or present in the final raw-turn context. Source visibility ( V ) counts original turns included verbatim in the answer prompt. Card-source coverage ( C ) includes directly cited turns and all turns belonging to cited episodes. Coverage is complete when all annotated supporting turns are covered. (b) Answer accuracy grouped by NEMORI’s retrieval-source coverage. Results use Opus 4.5 on 1,531 questions with fully mappable evidence annotations.
Variant
Multi-Hop
Temporal
Open-Domain
Single-Hop
Overall
Δ
Visibility
Matched-Budget Retrieval
79.1
80.4
64.6
88.7
83.7
−5.9
77.0
Query-Guided Retrieval
84.4
85.0
66.7
93.5
88.4
−1.2
82.6
w/o Evidence Refinement
84.0
88.2
67.7
93.6
89.1
−0.5
89.3
Full QEMem
86.9
89.1
68.8
93.1
89.6
–
91.6
Table 2: Ablation analysis of query-specific evidence construction on LoCoMo. Accuracy (%) is evaluated on 1,540 questions; Δ is the difference from Full QEMem in percentage points. Visibility is the percentage of questions with all annotated supporting turns exposed verbatim in the final answer context, evaluated on 1,531 questions with fully mappable annotations. Matched-Budget Retrieval matches Full QEMem’s final answer-context token budget. Bold indicates the best result in each accuracy and visibility column.
Grounding Metric
Haiku 4.5
Opus 4.5
Provenance Resolution
98.4
100.0
Exact Quotation Fidelity
82.7
95.9
Normalized Quotation Fidelity
85.5
97.7
Multi-Excerpt Quotation Fidelity
90.0
99.1
Original-Turn Traceability
100.0
100.0
Table 3: Source traceability and quotation fidelity of QEMem ViewCards on LoCoMo. Percentages are computed over all generated cards (10,121 for Haiku and 10,213 for Opus), except original-turn traceability, which uses cards citing original dialogue turns. Multi-excerpt fidelity permits segment-wise quotation matching.
Evidence Complexity
n
NEMORI
SimpleMem
MemR 3
QEMem
Δ vs. Best
Single evidence turn
1122
79.9
80.8
86.8
92.1
+5.3
≥ 3 evidence turns
184
63.6
75.0
53.8
81.0
+6.0
Cross-session evidence
332
63.3
72.0
59.0
81.3
+9.3
Cross-session list/count
235
59.6
74.0
54.5
80.4
+6.4
Table 4: LLM-judge accuracy (%) across evidence-complexity groups on LoCoMo. Overlapping groups are defined by supporting turns and sessions among 1,535 questions with valid evidence annotations. Δ is QEMem’s gain over the strongest included baseline per group (percentage points). Bold/underlined values mark the best/second-best accuracy.
Figure 3: Complete evidence coverage under source-turn budgets. (a) Haiku 4.5. (b) Opus 4.5. Curves measure coverage of all annotated supporting turns in offline retrieval prefixes, preserving retrieval order and candidate boundaries. Budgets count unique original turns exposed verbatim. QEMem uses its initial retrieval pool. NEMORI (actual) exposes source turns from its top-two episodes; NEMORI top-10 hypothetically expands all ten retrieved episodes into their associated source turns. Results cover 1,531 questions with fully mappable evidence annotations.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method / Metric
Multi-Hop
Temporal
Open-Domain
Single-Hop
Overall
NEMORI – R
31.5
75.6
38.0
82.0
68.8
NEMORI – V
1.8
19.7
8.7
20.5
16.2
QEMem – R
78.8
97.8
70.7
99.3
93.5
QEMem – V
72.8
95.9
69.6
98.7
91.6
QEMem – C
49.5
90.9
59.8
94.2
83.3
Appendix
Table 5: Additional RQ2 analysis with Claude Haiku 4.5. (a) Complete coverage of annotated supporting evidence across question categories. R denotes retrieval-record coverage, V denotes original source-turn visibility in the answer prompt, and C denotes ViewCard citation coverage. (b) Answer accuracy conditioned on NEMORI’s retrieval coverage. All values are percentages unless otherwise stated. Results are computed on 1,531 questions with fully mappable evidence annotations.
Backbone
Samples
Fully Supported
Partially Supported
Unsupported
Contradicted
Full + Partial
Haiku 4.5
144
57.6
39.6
0.7
2.1
97.2
Opus 4.5
144
66.0
32.6
0.7
0.7
98.6
Appendix
Table 6: Claim–source semantic consistency of sampled ViewCards. Results are based on 288 stratified samples evaluated by Claude Opus 4.5. The percentages below are unweighted sample proportions. Fully or partially supported claims include both strict entailment and claims containing additional details not fully established by the cited sources. Population-weighted estimates are reported in the text.
Backbone
Time Fields
Mechanically Verified
LLM-Written Time Consistency
Yesterday / Last Night
Last Year
Haiku 4.5
9,541
5,398/5,746 (93.9%)
4,857/5,205 (93.3%)
121/194 (62.4%)
39/64 (60.9%)
Opus 4.5
9,598
5,822/6,060 (96.1%)
5,287/5,525 (95.7%)
176/218 (80.7%)
49/65 (75.4%)
Appendix
Table 7: Temporal-grounding consistency of QEMem ViewCards. The audit covers cards with explicit time fields and reports agreement with deterministic source-timestamp-based rules. LLM-written time fields exclude values rewritten by the pipeline’s deterministic normalizer. Relative-time results are reported over applicable cases only.
Figure 4: Accuracy–cost tradeoffs on LoCoMo. Query-time inference cost versus LLM-judge accuracy for (a) Claude Haiku 4.5 and (b) Claude Opus 4.5. Dashed lines indicate the Pareto frontier within each backbone. Query-guided retrieval with direct answering improves both accuracy and cost relative to matched-context retrieval. Full QEMem achieves the highest observed accuracy while providing structured evidence representations and selective refinement. Costs include all query-time LLM calls but exclude shared memory construction and offline evaluation.
Method
Accuracy
Calls
Input Tokens
Output Tokens
Cost (cents)
Visibility
(a) Claude Haiku 4.5
NEMORI
76.5
1.00
5,186
205
0.68
16.2
Matched-Budget Retrieval
83.7
1.04
12,119
224
1.46
77.0
Query-Guided Retrieval (Direct Answer)
88.4
2.02
9,784
344
1.27
82.6
QEMem w/o Refinement
89.1
3.01
19,396
971
2.67
89.3
Full QEMem
89.6
3.34
23,003
1,199
3.19
91.6
Appendix
Table 8: Query-time efficiency comparison on LoCoMo. Accuracy and complete evidence visibility are percentages. Input and output tokens are average counts per question. Cost is reported in US cents per question. Visibility measures complete coverage of annotated supporting turns in the final answer context, evaluated on 1,531 questions with fully mappable evidence annotations.
Figure 5: Answer accuracy across evidence cardinality on LoCoMo. Results are grouped by the number of annotated supporting dialogue turns: one turn ( n=1,122 ), two turns ( n=229 ), and three or more turns ( n=184 ). (a) Claude Haiku 4.5. (b) Claude Opus 4.5. QEMem maintains the highest absolute accuracy among the evaluated methods across all complexity groups, while NEMORI and MemR 3 exhibit substantially greater performance degradation as evidence cardinality increases.
Temporal Span
n
NEMORI
SimpleMem
MemR 3
QEMem
(a) Claude Haiku 4.5
Same day
81
81.5
69.1
79.0
88.9
1–30 days
83
62.7
72.3
66.3
80.7
31–180 days
183
67.8
73.2
59.6
85.2
>180 days
66
51.5
68.2
48.5
71.2
(b) Claude Opus 4.5
Appendix
Table 9: Accuracy across temporal dispersion of supporting evidence. Temporal span is measured between the earliest and latest annotated supporting sessions for questions with multiple supporting turns. All results are LLM-judge accuracy percentages.
Complexity Contrast
Baseline
Haiku 4.5
Opus 4.5
1 supporting turn → 3+ supporting turns
NEMORI
+5.3[−4.4,+16.8]
+8.7[+3.0,+15.5]
SimpleMem
−5.3[−14.7,+4.2]
−2.1[−7.8,+4.6]
MemR 3
+21.9[+11.1,+36.4]
+18.4[+11.9,+27.9]
Single-session → cross-session evidence
NEMORI
+6.3[−0.4,+13.4]
+8.2[+4.5,+11.6]
Appendix
Table 10: Change in QEMem’s accuracy advantage under increasing evidence complexity. Values represent Δgap in percentage points with 95% conversation-cluster bootstrap confidence intervals. Positive values indicate a larger advantage for QEMem in high-complexity groups.
Retrieval Strategy
B=20
B=40
B=80
B=120
AUC
(a) Claude Haiku 4.5
NEMORI (actual)
9.3
15.0
16.2
16.2
14.5
NEMORI top-10 (hypothetical)
12.3
32.3
57.5
65.6
44.4
Matched Retrieval-Only
34.5
52.5
67.2
73.7
58.6
QEMem (Initial Retrieval)
56.6
67.9
80.4
82.6
73.1
(b) Claude Opus 4.5
Appendix
Table 11: Complete evidence coverage under different source-turn budgets. Coverage and normalized AUC are reported as percentages. AUC is computed over budgets of 10–120 source turns. NEMORI top-10 denotes a hypothetical offline expansion of all retrieved episodes, not the original NEMORI answer context.
Figure 6: Complete evidence recovery under source-turn token budgets. (a) Claude Haiku 4.5 and (b) Claude Opus 4.5. Budgets are measured using the cl100k_base tokenizer over original dialogue turns exposed verbatim. These counts exclude episodic summaries and semantic-memory text and are not equivalent to total answer-prompt tokens. The relative advantage of QEMem’s initial retrieval pool remains consistent with the source-turn-budget analysis in Figure 3 .
Figure 7: Answer-level groundedness across memory systems on LoCoMo. (a) Grounding classifications considering all factual claims, including auxiliary explanations. (b) Grounding classifications restricted to core claims constituting the final answer. Results are population-weighted estimates from 240 stratified questions using Claude Opus 4.5. The comparison distinguishes full grounding, partial grounding, unverifiable claims, unsupported claims, contradictions, and abstentions. Differences between the two panels highlight the influence of auxiliary explanatory content on answer-level faithfulness.
Metric
NEMORI
SimpleMem
MemR 3
QEMem
Fully Grounded ↑
62.2
82.3
66.4
77.7
Fully or Partially Grounded ↑
75.1
89.7
75.5
90.2
Correct & Fully Grounded ↑
55.4
73.6
58.9
73.2
Contradicted Answers ↓
14.3
2.4
17.7
4.6
Abstention Rate ↓
7.1
5.8
4.3
0.7
Core-Claim Groundedness ↑
76.7
82.3
75.8
79.3
Appendix
Table 12: Answer-level groundedness and faithfulness on LoCoMo. All metrics except claims per answer are percentages. Results are population-weighted estimates from 240 stratified questions, evaluated using Claude Opus 4.5 predictions. Fully grounded requires all checkable factual claims in an answer to be supported by source evidence. Core-only grounding excludes auxiliary explanations. Grounding is evaluated over complete model outputs, including auxiliary reasoning and explanations; core-answer grounding considers only claims constituting the final answer.
LLM agents that interact with a user across many sessions accumulate histories that exceed their context window, so they store past interactions in an external memory and answer each question from a small set of retrieved records. Existing memory systems rank records by lexical or embedding relevance, yet the top-ranked memories can each be relevant while jointly omitting a complementary fact that the answer requires, especially for multi-session and temporal questions. Drawing on the distinction between relevance and sufficiency in legal evidence scholarship, we recast memory retrieval as constructing a sufficient memory set. To operationalize this view, we introduce a blinded LLM judgment over the retrieved set, together with Gold Hit and Turn Hit as evidence-coverage proxies. We then propose Budgeted Flat Reconstruction (BFR), which builds sufficient sets over a fixed flat memory store in two stages. Specifically, we first apply Formal Concept Analysis for Memory Selection (FCA-MS) to decompose the question into information requirements and select a compact candidate subset that jointly covers them. Then, we repeatedly acquire unseen records through deeper text search or complementary entity and session views, stopping when the budget is exhausted. Experiments on LoCoMo and LongMemEval-S show that BFR outperforms same-store adaptations of recent agent-memory systems in both answer quality and evidence coverage. Specifically, on LongMemEval-S it raises judged accuracy from 72.4% to 82.2% and Turn Hit to 91.4%.
Yufeng Li, Shuxin Li, Zhenhua Xu +7
East China Normal University, Shanghai, China · Nanyang Technological University, Singapore · Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China +3
Long-term memory is essential for language agents to maintain coherent and effective behavior over extended, multi-session interactions. Existing memory systems mainly use retrieval at read time, while write-time memory formation still relies on direct extraction or compression. However, when future information needs are unknown, compressing an entire interaction in one pass can overlook locally important details that may matter later. To this end, we introduce RIME, a retrieval-induced memory framework that shifts memory construction from monolithic compression toward evidence-centered integration. RIME uses generic self-questions to retrieve focused dialogue evidence and grounds memory formation in both the retrieved evidence and relevant historical memories, which are jointly reconciled into an evolving memory bank with temporal and provenance information. At inference time, compressed memory serves as the primary rather than the sole source of evidence: when it cannot support an answer, RIME retrieves relevant source dialogue together with its local context to recover information omitted during memory formation, without resorting to full-history processing. Extensive experiments on LoCoMo with Qwen3-235B-A22B and GPT-5.6 Sol show that RIME consistently achieves the best performance across all three quality metrics among the compared methods, while requiring substantially fewer query-time LLM tokens.
Long-term memory has become increasingly important for LLM agents that operate across extended interactions and evolving task contexts. Recent memory systems have made past experiences more persistent, compact, and retrievable, but retrieval alone does not ensure that a memory provides valid evidence for the current query. When experiences are compressed into reusable fragments, memories from different situations may appear equally relevant if they involve recurring entities or user states. We refer to this failure as context collapse: memories lose the surrounding context needed to judge whether they provide valid evidence for the current query. To address this problem, we propose Contextual Reinstatement for Agentic Memory (RaMem), a framework that turns retrieved memory fragments into contextually verifiable evidence. RaMem operates through four coordinated stages: (i) evidence anchoring grounds each memory in its original episodic conditions, especially event time, mention time, session span, and participants; (ii) recall condition induction derives the evidence conditions implied by the query; (iii) validity-aware retrieval uses these conditions to prioritize context-compatible memories while retaining content-relevant candidates as fallback evidence; and (iv) context-preserved synthesis keeps the selected memories' structured context available to the generator. Experiments on long-term memory benchmarks show that RaMem consistently improves performance over strong memory baselines, with average F1 gains of more than 10% across several backbones.