Long-term agent memory is shifting from predefined workflows toward learnable policies for memory construction and retrieval. Existing learning-based methods either optimize construction alone or combine retrieval-side online reinforcement learning (RL) with offline construction supervision, limiting co-adaptation between the two stages. In this paper, we explore end-to-end online RL for a unified memory manager (Uni-Mem) that learns both capabilities under a shared policy. However, joint optimization with existing RL algorithms such as GRPO faces confounded group comparisons and sparse feedback over long memory-management trajectories. To this end, we propose Stage-Decoupled GRPO, which alternates construction and retrieval optimization while controlling variation from the other stage within each rollout group, yielding stage-specific learning signals. We further introduce Event-Wise Credit Assignment (ECA), which localizes feedback to responsible events and propagates event-level advantages to their constituent operations. Experiments on LoCoMo and LongMemEval show that Uni-Mem outperforms the strongest RL-based memory, demonstrating the effectiveness of jointly learning memory construction and retrieval via Stage-Decoupled GRPO and ECA.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of training paradigms in different methods. Construction-only RL keeps retrieval fixed, while asymmetric joint learning combines offline construction imitation with online retrieval RL. Uni-Mem jointly optimizes both stages under a shared policy through alternating online RL and event-wise credit.
Figure 2: Overview of Uni-Mem . (a) Uni-Mem unifies memory construction and retrieval through a shared tool-using agent, continually processing an ordered stream of events. (b) Event-Wise Credit Assignment attributes sparse outcome rewards to relevant events. (c) Event-level feedback is propagated to the corresponding memory operations (tool calls). (d) Stage-Decoupled GRPO alternates between construction and retrieval optimization.
Model
Multi
Open
Single
Temp.
Overall
Training-free Methods
RAG
15.06
19.28
12.79
5.43
12.17
A-MEM
40.78
31.32
46.90
28.68
40.78
Mem0
61.92
48.19
65.20
38.76
53.30
MemoryOS
48.12
38.55
63.14
24.81
51.26
Training-based methods
Table 1: Performance comparison on LoCoMo (LLM-as-a-Judge, %). Bold and underlined results indicate the best and second-best, respectively. † marks our re-evaluation of the officially released checkpoints under the same protocol as Uni-Mem . Other baseline results are taken from Yan et al. (2026a) under their original protocol, as reference only (Appendix E.1 ).
Figure 3: OOD accuracy ( J , %) on LongMemEval-Oracle and LongMemEval-S. SS: single-session; asst.: assistant; pref.: preference. Both panels use a 0–100% scale. Mem-T results are shown only for Oracle.
Model
Multi
Open
Single
Temp.
Overall
Qwen3-4B-Instruct
M0
78.61
70.97
84.04
57.81
76.58
M1
81.09
69.35
85.57
54.01
76.95
M2
82.59
72.58
86.59
55.27
78.24
M3
84.08
66.13
87.10
65.82
80.72
M4
81.09
75.81
88.79
62.87
80.99
Table 2: Ablation study on LoCoMo ( J , %) with raw or SFT-initialized Qwen3-4B-Instruct as start point ( M0 ).
Memory
Search
Multi
Open
Single
Temp.
Overall
P0
Q0
78.61
70.97
84.04
57.81
76.58
P0
Q+
86.07
67.74
88.29
62.45
81.08
P+
Q0
77.61
69.35
89.98
81.86
84.76
P+
Q+
87.06
79.03
91.51
86.08
88.80
Table 3: Evaluation of memory construction and retrieval capabilities on LoCoMo ( J , %) by cross-combining memory banks and retrieval policies. P0 and P+ denote memory banks constructed by the base Qwen3-4B manager and the trained Uni-Mem manager, respectively; Q0 and Q+ denote their corresponding retrieval policies.
Figure 4: Effects of manager training, scale, and alternating schedules on LoCoMo. (a) Training and manager scale. The arrow shows the gain from SFT followed by RL. (b) Construction–retrieval update ratio. (c) Alternation granularity at a fixed 1:1 ratio. C and R denote consecutive construction and retrieval updates per cycle.
Figure 5: Case studies comparing Uni-Mem and the base Qwen3-4B manager in (a) memory construction and (b) memory retrieval.
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Interaction
Training
Method
Con.
Ret.
Con.
Ret.
MEM1
S
–
RL
–
MemAgent
S
–
RL
–
Memory-R1
S
Fixed
RL
Fixed
Mem- α
S
Fixed
RL
Fixed
Memory-R2
S
Fixed
RL
Fixed
Appendix
Table 4: Interaction pattern and training of construction (Con.) and retrieval (Ret.). S: single-turn; P: fixed multi-step pipeline; M: multi-turn with tool observations; Fixed: similarity retrieval without learning; –: no explicit stage. Offline: imitation of hindsight-filtered actions.
QA category
Length
Task
Sessions
Turns
QA pairs
Single-hop
Multi-hop
Temporal
Open-domain
Short
conv_05
10
162
114
66
21
16
11
Medium
conv_07
20
371
128
68
23
25
12
Long
conv_12
35
703
116
57
13
34
12
Extra-long
conv_19
52
1,054
415
198
74
113
30
Total
4 tasks
117
2,290
773
389
131
188
65
Appendix
Table 5: Statistics of the four source tasks for SFT demonstration generation. A turn is one nonempty message; session dates and speaker metadata are excluded. QA counts include all source questions, with no adversarial questions.
Figure 6: SFT training loss, measured as the mean negative log-likelihood over supervised assistant tokens (nats/token). The horizontal axis counts optimizer updates. The light curve shows the logged loss; the dark curve shows a trailing 100-step moving average.
Checkpoint
Tool format (%)
Pass@1 (%)
Pass@3 (%)
Gap (pp)
F1 (%)
Entropy
Finish-bundled
Base (pre-SFT)
99.32
79.57
90.45
10.89
24.80
0.1706
1,610
Step 431
99.60
81.93
94.94
13.01
26.52
0.4482
182
Step 862 (selected)
99.34
83.35
94.42
11.06
26.96
0.4058
54
Step 1293
99.70
83.59
94.09
10.50
26.98
0.3717
67
Step 1724
99.74
85.19
94.94
9.74
27.66
0.3776
21
Step 2155
99.81
85.06
94.55
9.48
27.24
0.3632
21
Appendix
Table 6: SFT checkpoint selection for RL initialization. Bold marks the selected checkpoint, not per-column maxima. All checkpoints pass the 95% tool-format gate. Pass@1, pass@3, and F1 use judged, non-adversarial QA records; gap is pass@3 minus pass@1 in percentage points (pp), computed before rounding. Entropy is a partial-sum estimate in nats/token on held-out SFT prompts. Tool format and finish-bundled are measured from the first evaluation run; finish-bundled is a raw count.
Hyperparameter
Value
Actor learning rate
2×10−6
Task batch size
2
Rollouts per task ( N )
8
PPO mini-batch size
1
Sampling temperature / top- p
0.7 / 1.0
Training epochs
200
Appendix
Table 7: Main RL training hyperparameters. Task batch size is specified before sampling the eight rollouts per task.
Setting
Multi
Open
Single
Temp.
Overall
Memory-R2
Reported
80.93
67.53
86.80
69.90
80.99
Re-evaluated
69.15
61.29
78.61
57.38
71.26
Memory-R2 (OSS)
Reported
85.07
74.14
90.58
83.33
87.10
Re-evaluated
74.13
70.97
81.15
74.68
77.87
Appendix
Table 8: Reported and re-evaluated Memory-R2 results on LoCoMo ( J , %). Reported results are from Yan et al. (2026a) . Re-evaluated results are obtained from the officially released checkpoints using our Mem0-aligned judge prompt.
Setting
Overall J
Δ vs. M0
Re-evaluated baselines
Memory-R2 (OSS)
77.87
–
Mem-T
76.49
–
Our harness, off-the-shelf manager
Qwen3.5-27B (strongest)
87.05
–
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B (largest)
85.86
–
Appendix
Table 9: Overall J (%) on LoCoMo under the same harness. Δ is measured against the start point M0 of each block. Our RL combines ECA, Stage-Decoupled GRPO, and update-robust attribution; see Table 2 for per-component results and Table 10 for all off-the-shelf managers.
Figure 7: Training-time LLM-as-a-Judge scores ( J , %) of Uni-Mem , with Qwen3.8-27B used for both answer generation and judging. The light curve shows the logged scores; the dark curve shows a trailing 20-step moving average.
Manager
Multi
Open
Single
Temp.
Overall
Off-the-shelf managers
Qwen3-4B
78.61
70.97
84.04
57.81
76.58
Qwen3.5-27B
85.07
74.19
89.13
86.92
87.05
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
82.09
74.19
89.30
85.23
86.23
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
84.08
67.74
88.46
85.65
85.86
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
84.08
75.81
86.93
87.34
85.86
Appendix
Table 10: Detailed results on training and manager scale on LoCoMo ( J , %). Multi, Open, Single, and Temp. denote multi-hop, open-domain, single-hop, and temporal questions, respectively. Best scores in each column are bold.
Schedule
Multi
Open
Single
Temp.
Overall
Construction–retrieval update ratio
1:8
81.09
66.13
89.47
79.75
84.48
1:4
86.07
64.52
90.83
81.01
86.32
1:2
87.56
70.97
91.85
83.97
88.15
1:1
87.06
79.03
91.51
86.08
88.80
2:1
89.55
74.19
89.81
82.28
87.24
Appendix
Table 11: Detailed results for alternating training schedules on LoCoMo ( J , %). C:R specifies consecutive construction and retrieval updates per cycle. Best scores in each column within each block are bold.
Figure 8: Accuracy ( J ) versus token consumption under different maximum retrieval steps k . Highlighted points and annotations compare k=3 and k=8 ; lines connect the measured settings.
Large language model (LLM) agents require long-term user memory for consistent personalization, but limited context windows hinder tracking evolving preferences over long interactions. Existing memory systems mainly rely on static, hand-crafted update rules; although reinforcement learning (RL)-based agents learn memory updates, sparse outcome rewards provide weak supervision, resulting in unstable long-horizon optimization. Drawing on memory schema theory and the functional division between prefrontal regions and hippocampus regions, we introduce MemCoE, a cognition-inspired two-stage optimization framework that learns how memory should be organized and what information to update. In the first stage, we propose Memory Guideline Induction to optimize a global guideline via contrastive feedback interpreted as textual gradients; in the second stage, Guideline-Aligned Memory Policy Optimization uses the induced guideline to define structured process rewards and performs multi-turn RL to learn a guideline-following memory evolution policy. We evaluate on three personalization memory benchmarks, covering explicit/implicit preference and different sizes and noise, and observe consistent improvements over strong baselines with favorable robustness, transferability, and efficiency.
Derong Xu, Shuochen Liu, Pengfei Luo +8
University of Science and Technology of China & State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence · City University of Hong Kong · Dalian University of Technology +1
Memory-augmented LLM agents enable interactions that extend beyond finite context windows by storing, updating, and reusing information across sessions. However, training such agents with reinforcement learning in multi-session environments is challenging because memory turns the agent's past actions into part of its future environment. Once different rollouts write, update, or delete different memories, they no longer share the same intermediate memory state, making trajectory-level comparisons fundamentally unfair. This violates a key assumption behind group-relative methods such as GRPO, where rollouts are compared as if they were sampled from the same effective environment. Consequently, trajectory-level rewards provide noisy or biased credit signals for long-horizon memory operations. To address this challenge, we introduce Memory-R2, a training framework for long-horizon memory-augmented LLM agents. Its core algorithm, LoGo-GRPO, combines local and global group-relative optimization. The global objective preserves end-to-end learning from long-horizon trajectory-level rewards, while local rerollouts compare different memory-operation outcomes from the same intermediate memory state, yielding fairer group comparisons and more precise supervision for memory construction. Beyond credit assignment, Memory-R2 jointly optimizes memory formation and memory evolution with a shared-parameter co-learning design, where a fact extractor and a memory manager are instantiated from the same LLM backbone through role-specific prompts. To stabilize multi-step RL over long memory horizons, we adopt a progressive curriculum that increases the training horizon from 8 to 16 to 32 sessions. Together, these components provide an effective training paradigm for memory-augmented LLM agents in long-horizon multi-session settings.
Sikuan Yan, Ahmed Bahloul, Ercong Nie +4
Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich · Munich Center for Machine Learning · Huawei Heisenberg Research Center (Munich) +1
Long-context LLMs and Retrieval-Augmented Generation defer state tracking and evidence consolidation to query time, which is brittle when facts evolve and answers depend on latent states. We introduce Unified Memory Agent (UMA) for a one-to-many setting: query-agnostic external memory is constructed once from a stream and reused across multiple future QA sessions. A single policy maintains a structured Memory Bank through CRUD operations and answers using both the Memory Bank and raw context. Task-Stratified GRPO uses the mean reward of QA trajectories branching from each sampled memory state to supervise memory maintenance, while normalizing memory and per-question QA groups separately. We also introduce Ledger-QA, a diagnostic benchmark for long-horizon state tracking over accumulated updates. At the 16k budget, UMA-Generalist achieves the highest average score among compared methods across the test-time-learning and accurate-retrieval benchmarks and transfers to Ledger-QA without task-specific training; UMA-Specialist further improves long-horizon tracking after task adaptation. These results support learned proactive memory management for long-context reasoning.
Kehao Zhang, Shangtong Gui, Sheng Yang +2
1Key Laboratory of Intelligent Information Processing, Institute of Computing Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (ICT/CAS) · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · 4Li Auto Inc. +1