Memory is increasingly used in long-horizon agents, yet the net value of building memory over direct retrieval from raw history remains largely unclear. Through a large-scale evaluation across multiple benchmarks and model backbones, we find many dedicated memory systems underperform naive RAG in many cases, indicating a negative net value. Taking RAG as a reference, we dissect the net value of memory into the gains and losses over direct retrieval, termed memory benefit and memory tax. These gains and losses arise because memory process changes how the raw information is organized and accessed. We view such changes as the double-edged deviations from the raw history. They are originally designed and introduced to benefit the task, for example by reorganizing facts or distilling preferences, but some may also remove or obscure evidence, giving rise to memory tax. Since memory benefit reflects the expected gains of its design, we then focus more on the overlooked memory tax, study how it arises from the system and evaluation side, and generalize the concept to more application scenarios of memory. We hope the notion of memory tax can provide a new lens and shift more attention from standalone performance to the net value of memory, informing more reliable memory designs and evaluations. We will open-source the code and results to the community. Project Page: https://hexuan21.github.io/MemoryTax/
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Pareto plot of Accuracy vs. Token-cost. Bubble size is the memory store size in tokens.
Figure 2
Figure 4: Retrieval rounds replayed for the evidence to be fully retrieved, under raw chunks vs. memory units.
Figure 4
Figure 8: Experiential memory results on agent task benchmarks, memory baselines are green when above RAG and red otherwise. See full version with memory tax part plotted in Appendix C.6.1 .
Table 3: Long-horizon consistency of world models with different memory representations and mechanisms.
Appendix figures & tables25 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmark
#Corpus
#Q
Q/corpus
Tokens/corpus
Answer format
LongMemEval-s
500
500
1
∼ 115k
short answer
PersonaMem-v2 ∗
40
934
25
∼ 123k
4-way MCQ
MINT-Eval ∗
60
1,557
26
∼ 139k
short answer
Multi-turn dialogue
10
690
70
∼ 370k
State tracking
10
563
50
∼ 0.2k
GitHub commits
20
154
7.5
∼ 56k
Appendix
Table 4: Statistics of the evaluation data. Tokens and questions per corpus are medians. ∗ Due to cost, we evaluate on a subset of the released benchmark (see text for the sampling procedure).
Method
LongMemEval-s
PersonaMem-v2
MINT-Eval
Q4B
Q27B
Q4B
Q27B
Q4B
Q27B
Chunking Method
Original (Buffer-1024)
70.2
77.6
37.2
46.8
25.8
28.6
Buffer-512
71.2
76.8
35.8
46.5
25.6
25.7
Turn-level
70.8
76.6
35.2
47.2
25.8
26.1
Streaming-chunk
68.4
69.4
35.1
46.2
25.1
24.8
Appendix
Table 6: Ablations of the RAG baseline on chunking method, retrieval method, embedding model and reranker. Scores are judge accuracy (%).
Backbone
Setting
LME-s
PM-v2
luna
Ours (no post-proc.)
78.0
41.7
+ official post-proc.
78.0
37.8
Q27B
Ours (reranking on)
76.6
50.2
default (reranking off)
45.6
42.7
Appendix
Table 9: MemOS : retrieval post-processing and reranking.
Figure 10: Per-query correctness overlap between each memory system and RAG (1rd) on LongMemEval-s, with Qwen3.5-4B (top) and Qwen3.6-27B (bottom).
Benchmark
#Queries
#Queries w/ gold
#Gold items
LongMemEval-s
500
479
896
PersonaMem-v2
934
836
2618
MINT-Eval
1557
765
2153
Appendix
Table 11: Gold evidence in the three main benchmarks. Gold items are summed over queries.
Figure 13: QA accuracy with the oracle raw context vs. oracle memory units on LongMemEval-s and PersonaMem-v2 with Qwen3.5-4B and Qwen3.6-27B , with retrieval (hatched) as reference. Right of each panel: memory tax with normal retrieval vs. with oracle memory units.
Figure 14: Query similarity comparison of gold raw turns vs. gold memory units on LongMemEval-s (top) and PersonaMem-v2 (bottom) with Qwen3.6-27B . In each pair, point-wise similarity difference (top) and overall distributions (bottom).
LongMemEval-s
MAGMA
A-Mem
MemoryOS
SimpleMem
Coverage
100.0%
100.0%
99.7%
98.7%
Avg. units
1.00
1.00
0.99
1.59
LightMem
OpenViking
PlugMem
Memory-R2
Coverage
96.8%
95.5%
95.5%
92.3%
Avg. units
2.78
1.99
2.07
1.28
Appendix
Table 12: Mapping from gold raw turns to gold memory units. Coverage is the share of gold raw turns mapped to at least one memory unit, and Avg. units is the average number of gold memory units per gold raw turn.
Method
LongMemEval-s
PersonaMem-v2
Correct
Extraneous
Missing
Correct
Extraneous
Missing
SimpleMem
92.2
5.8
2.0
91.7
5.0
3.3
LightMem
85.0
14.2
0.8
88.5
8.2
3.3
MemOS
88.7
8.2
3.2
87.3
12.7
0.0
Memory-R2
83.3
15.8
0.8
85.9
12.5
1.6
Appendix
Table 13: Human spot check of LLM-selected gold memory units (%), labeled as correct, extraneous (irrelevant units are selected), or missing (relevant units left out).
Figure 15: Cross-backbone robustness of memory systems (vertical version of Figure 7 ). Segments are red when the drop exceeds that of RAG (grey block) and green otherwise.
Figure 16: Simple retrieval baselines across benchmarks with Qwen3.6-27B . marks multimodal benchmarks.
Method
ALFWorld (Embodied)
WebShop (Web)
Mind2Web (Web)
SR
Avg Tokens (K)
Avg Steps
Score
Avg Tokens (K)
Avg Steps
StepSR
Avg Tokens (K)
Avg Steps
No Memory
52.2
75.9
32.1
45.9
9.4
7.3
48.5
3.2
N/A ‡
Naive RAG
73.1
234.8
22.7
38.4
36.8
8.8
45.3
9.6
N/A ‡
ReasoningBank
62.7
254.0
29.7
34.3
40.1
9.7
49.9
11.4
N/A ‡
Mem p
76.1
237.7
23.4
44.5
37.6
7.8
47.9
6.4
N/A ‡
G-Memory
73.9
259.6
24.4
39.5
65.1
8.4
47.0
14.4
N/A ‡
Appendix
Table 16: Full results of experiential memory with Qwen3.5-4B : task score, tokens per task (in thousands, with the cost of building the experience library amortised over the test tasks) and average steps (dialogue turns for τ2 -Bench). Best score per benchmark in bold .
Figure 17: Experiential memory on agentic tasks, task score (bars, left axis) and tokens per task (diamonds, right axis). Memory baselines are green when above Naive RAG and red otherwise, with darker shades for larger relative gaps. Dashed boxes below zero show the memory tax, the score that Naive RAG obtains where the memory fails.
Figure 18: Examples of memory benefit: (a) focused atomic extraction, (b) multi-hop linking, and (c) implicit preference exposure.
Figure 19: Examples of memory benefit-2: (d) temporal anchoring, (e) explicit forgetting, and (f) processing for heterogeneous inputs.
Figure 20: Faithfulness case studies-1.
Figure 24: Examples of accessibility degradation: (a) fragmenting, (b) diluting, and (c) rephrasing.
Figure 25: Direct examples of the dual nature of memory-1: the same mechanism of a memory system brings memory benefit on one question (left) and memory tax on another (right).
Figure 26: Direct examples of the dual nature of memory-2: the same mechanism of a memory system brings memory benefit on one question (left) and memory tax on another (right).
Type
Method
Acc
Retrieval Scope
Token Cost
E2E Time
LLM Calls (K)
Memory Storage (K)
Build (M)
Mant (M)
Infer (M)
Offline Building
Online QA
GPT-5.6 Luna (low)
Retrieval-only
RAG (1rd)
82.0
1.91%
–
–
0.27
0.11h
3.4min
0.10
122.5
RAG (2rd)
90.0
2.75%
–
–
0.65
0.11h
7.7min
0.20
122.5
Flat store
A-Mem
84.0
2.28%
29.3
145.0
0.44
117.0h
3.2min
98.4
188.5
MemOS
78.0
2.20%
58.8
–
0.12
63.8h
5.8min
25.2
44.7
Appendix
Table 18: Full results on LongMemEval-s with GPT-5.6 Luna (low) including judge accuracy (%) followed by cost metrics. Token cost is split into memory construction (Build), maintenance (Mant) and inference (Infer), and end-to-end time into offline building and online QA. LongMemEval-s consists of 500 corpora (for GPT-5.6 Luna , we use a subset of 100 as mentioned in Appendix A.1 ), and we report the aggregate result over all corpora, i.e., the overall benchmark-level score.
Figure 27: Pareto plots on LongMemEval-s with GPT-5.6 Luna (low) , accuracy vs. token cost (left) and accuracy vs. the number of LLM calls (right). Bubble size is the memory store size in tokens. LongMemEval-s consists of 500 corpora (for GPT-5.6 Luna , we use a subset of 100 as in Appendix A.1 ), and report per-corpus averages.
Type
Method
Acc
Retrieval Scope
Token Cost
E2E Time
LLM Calls (K)
Memory Storage (K)
Build (M)
Mant (M)
Infer (M)
Offline Building
Online QA
Qwen3.6-27B
Retrieval-only
RAG (1rd)
46.8
1.48%
–
–
2.77
0.07h
58.3min
0.93
166.2
RAG (2rd)
48.7
2.78%
–
–
7.68
0.07h
103.7min
1.87
166.2
Flat store
A-Mem
48.4
1.68%
19.6
94.4
4.18
227.4h
40.8min
79.0
251.7
MemOS
50.2
2.29%
44.8
–
1.31
35.3h
69.9min
20.7
43.9
Appendix
Table 19: Full results on PersonaMem-v2 with Qwen3.6-27B including judge accuracy (%) followed by cost metrics. Token cost is split into memory construction (Build), maintenance (Mant) and inference (Infer), and end-to-end time into offline building and online QA. PersonaMem-v2 consists of 200 corpora (we use a subset of 40 as mentioned in Appendix A.1 ), and we report the aggregate result over all corpora, i.e., the overall benchmark-level score.
Figure 28: Pareto plots on PersonaMem-v2 with Qwen3.6-27B , accuracy vs. token cost (left) and accuracy vs. the number of LLM calls (right). Bubble size is the memory store size in tokens. PersonaMem-v2 consists of 200 corpora (we use a subset of 40 as mentioned in Appendix A.1 ) and report per-corpus averages..
Type
Method
Acc
Retrieval Scope
Token Cost
E2E Time
LLM Calls (K)
Memory Storage (K)
Build (M)
Mant (M)
Infer (M)
Offline Building
Online QA
Qwen3.5-4B
Retrieval-only
RAG (1rd)
25.8
6.73%
–
–
7.65
0.10h
68.9min
1.56
186.5
RAG (2rd)
26.1
11.93%
–
–
19.0
0.10h
158.2min
3.11
186.5
Flat store
A-Mem
24.4
6.68%
25.0
137.4
7.42
44.4h
50.9min
85.9
244.1
MemOS
18.0
13.93%
54.4
–
1.27
11.2h
42.3min
23.0
41.3
Appendix
Table 20: Full results on MINT-Eval with Qwen3.5-4B including judge accuracy (%) followed by cost metrics. Token cost is split into memory construction (Build), maintenance (Mant) and inference (Infer), and end-to-end time into offline building and online QA. MINT-Eval consists of 595 corpora (we use a subset of 60 as mentioned in Appendix A.1 ), and we report the aggregate result over all corpora, i.e., the overall benchmark-level score.
Figure 29: Pareto plots on MINT-Eval with Qwen3.5-4B , accuracy vs. token cost (left) and accuracy vs. the number of LLM calls (right). Bubble size is the memory store size in tokens. MINT-Eval consists of 595 corpora (we use a subset of 60 as mentioned in Appendix A.1 ), and report per-corpus averages.
Explicit memory systems transform conversation history into persistent representations intended to improve future access, often at substantial construction cost. Yet it remains unclear whether this added complexity yields better answer accuracy than retrieving directly from raw history. This study compares six state-of-the-art explicit memory systems with raw-history RAG on LongMemEval-S and BEAM-100K under original and controlled retrieval settings. We find only localized gains for particular question types and tight run-time context budgets, with no consistent advantage over strong raw-history RAG baselines. Oracle retrieval shows that some systems fail to preserve answer-supporting information during explicit memory construction, while others preserve it but fail to retrieve it effectively, despite construction costs reaching hours per conversation. Our findings suggest that while many existing memory systems for AI agents emphasize increasingly elaborate explicit memory construction, they are often evaluated without strong controlled comparisons to raw-history RAG and may underemphasize retrieval. Retrieval remains a major bottleneck when useful information is preserved, suggesting that improving access to existing information may be at least as important as constructing richer explicit memory.
Yongjie Zhou, Shuai Wang, Bevan Koopman +1
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia · CSIRO · Google
Agents today often take real-world actions that depend on long-term memory and context recall over time. However, most current memory benchmarks are built for a conversational question-answer format, where the question itself signals that some fact must be retrieved, and often which one. Moreover, benchmarks rarely require anything beyond accuracy from submissions, allowing memory systems to make unreasonable cost/time tradeoffs to achieve higher scores. We present DolphinBench, a benchmark that evaluates memory directly through an agent's task completion. DolphinBench includes three knowledge-work personas with roughly 500k tokens of user messages per persona and evaluates agents on tasks that depend on information from that history. We verify all 200 tasks per persona by running an agent with and without the relevant history, requiring success with it and failure without it. Finally, we require all evaluations to report total cost and latency alongside accuracy, which enables us to evaluate agent memory systems holistically. No existing memory benchmark combines all three. The dataset and evaluation code are available at https://dolphinbench.ai.
Memory is becoming core infrastructure for long-horizon LLM agents, yet existing evaluations offer limited guidance on which memory substrate, namely the underlying medium in which memory is represented and stored, should be used under different operating regimes. We present a controlled harness evaluation of memory substrates for memory-augmented agents, covering dense and sparse indices, text records, structural stores, hierarchical stores, refinement-based memories, parametric updates, and activation-compatible context mechanisms. Across three backbone models and four benchmark suites spanning user-centric question answering and agent-centric decision-making, we instrument 26 performance and efficiency metrics under a unified harness. Our results show that no single substrate consistently dominates: broad retrieval benefits long-context factual QA, while excessive retrieval can harm sequential decision-making by shifting attention away from action-critical context. Scalability introduces a further routing axis, as substrates that perform well at moderate history lengths can become costly or brittle at longer horizons. These findings motivate substrate routing as a necessary component of adaptive agent memory systems and provide empirical guidance for designing efficient, reliable, and regime-aware long-term memory for LLM agents. Code will be made available upon acceptance.
Wei-Chieh Huang, Weizhi Zhang, Yuchen Wu +12
University of Illinois Chicago · University of Washington · McGill University +2