Proactive LLM agents anticipate service opportunities from ongoing observations and accumulated history. Existing approaches emphasize recent context or retrieval of related memories, providing limited support for validating recurring behavioral regularities and assessing their applicability to the current event. We propose Proactive Memory (ProactMem), which organizes history into recent events, temporal trajectories, and behavioral regularities. Trajectory facts are checked against source events, and regularities are assessed through historical replay before being matched to current conditions. We also construct ProactiveStream, a longitudinal benchmark covering three application scopes, where agents process isolated event streams chronologically under episode-aware opportunity labels. On ProactiveStream, ProactMem achieves an overall effectiveness (F1) of 52.6%, a 21.4% relative improvement over the strongest of five external baselines. Code is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ProactMem-5351/.
Figure 2: ProactMem architecture. (A) Source validation and replay build memory. (B) Retrieved memory and current conditions inform assessment and intervention control. Events are stored after the decision (dashed arrows).
Scope
Primary Source
Entity
Streams
Input Events
Temporal Coverage
Reference Interventions
Sports
HeartSteps
participant
9
1,456
367 observed participant-days
365
Home
CASAS
home
4
1,624
14 consecutive days/home
190
Code
GH Archive
repository
4
1,459
longitudinal repository histories
174
Total
three scopes
isolated stream
17
4,539
three longitudinal settings
729
Table 1: Composition and provenance of ProactiveStream. Reference interventions mark service opportunities.
Scope
Method
Frequency ( × )
Relevance ↑
Coverage ↑
Effectiveness ↑
Intrusion ↓
Balance ↑
Sports
ProactiveAgent
2.75
30.0
82.5
43.9
64.5
59.0
ContextAgent
2.16
31.0
67.1
42.4
50.0
58.6
Mem0
3.40
28.8
97.8
44.5
81.0
58.4
A-MEM
2.41
30.6
74.0
43.3
56.0
59.0
Graphiti
2.20
29.3
64.4
40.3
52.0
56.2
ProactMem
2.15
35.8
76.7
48.8
46.1
65.3
Table 2: Full-scope comparison (GPT-5.6 Luna, %; frequency in × ). Bold/underline: best/second-best per scope.
Model
Sports
Home
Code
Effectiveness ↑
Intrusion ↓
Effectiveness ↑
Intrusion ↓
Effectiveness ↑
Intrusion ↓
GPT-5.6 Luna
48.8
46.1
58.6
10.3
55.4
18.1
GPT-5.6 Terra
54.1
39.4
64.4
9.1
60.3
14.9
GPT-5.6 Sol
58.6
34.4
69.3
7.5
66.4
11.8
Table 3: Within-series model scaling (%). Bold and underline mark the best and second-best scores per column.
Figure 3: Event-only comparison of four backbones on selected streams (0–100%). Specificity =1−intrusion .
Figure 4: Memory-layer ablation (GPT-5.6 Luna) under a shared decision prompt and intervention control policy.
Sports
Home
Code
Method
Relevance
Effectiveness
Relevance
Effectiveness
Relevance
Effectiveness
w/o replay gate
31.1
42.7
43.6
54.4
33.8
48.1
w/o trajectory validation
34.4
47.5
45.9
56.7
36.1
51.5
before suppression
–
–
–
–
36.7
53.6
ProactMem
35.8
48.8
48.6
58.6
40.1
55.4
Table 4: Validation and Code intervention control (GPT-5.6 Luna, %). Each w/o row drops one check; before suppression scores recorded proposals with later states fixed. Bold and underline mark the best and second-best.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Interface and Settings
ProactiveAgent
Released prompt and proposal/null contract on the study backbone; causal event–decision history capped at 1,000 events per request including the current event ( Lu et al., 2025 ; THUNLP, 2026 ) .
ContextAgent
In-context proactive-service judgment on public events ( Yang et al., 2025 ) .
Mem0
Open-source mem0ai==2.0.12 extraction, consolidation, and retrieval; local all-MiniLM-L6-v2 embeddings; retrieval of up to eight memories for the same entity with search threshold 0.1 ( Chhikara et al., 2025 ; Mem0, 2026 ) .
A-MEM
Linked notes with association updates augment bounded context ( Xu et al., 2025 ) .
Graphiti
Graphiti 0.30.2 with Neo4j and local 384-dimensional all-MiniLM-L6-v2 embeddings; committed events populate separate graphs for each stream. Queries from the current event use native hybrid edge search with reciprocal-rank fusion, retrieving up to ten relation facts with validity fields and source IDs ( Zep, 2026 ) .
Appendix
Table 5: External-method memory interfaces and implementation settings; all methods share the backbone.
Scope
Source Stream
Events
Sports
HeartSteps participant 05
184
HeartSteps participant 35
191
Home
CASAS home 0004
406
CASAS home 0003
406
Code
Unitech/pm2
365
thephpleague/commonmark
347
Appendix
Table 6: Streams in the cross-family comparison.
Scope
Method
Frequency ( × )
Coverage ↑
Sports
w/o replay gate
2.19
68.2
w/o trajectory validation
2.23
76.7
ProactMem
2.15
76.7
Home
w/o replay gate
1.65
72.1
w/o trajectory validation
1.62
74.2
ProactMem
1.52
73.7
Appendix
Table 7: Additional validation and Code intervention control scores. Frequency uses multiples ( × ); coverage uses percentages. Bold and underline mark the best and second-best coverage per scope, including ties.
Scope
Positives
I
TP
FP
FN
TN
Earlier Diagnostic Effectiveness
Separate-Team Effectiveness
Sports
27
86
24
62
3
61
42.6
42.5
Home
15
39
15
24
0
111
68.7
55.6
Code
34
42
18
24
16
92
57.6
47.4
Appendix
Table 8: Reference sensitivity on 150 targets per scope. Effectiveness (%) scores identical outputs under earlier and separate-team references. Positives and confusion counts use the latter; I counts final interventions.
Scope
Covered/New (Coverage)
I
F
V
R
Unmatched
Late
Unresolved
SR
RIR
Sports
23/26 (88.5)
86
23
1
1
60
0
1
27.9
1.2
Home
9/9 (100.0)
39
10
6
17
6
0
0
41.0
43.6
Code
14/31 (45.2)
42
14
3
4
16
4
1
40.5
9.5
Appendix
Table 9: ProactMem episode diagnostic on 150 targets per scope. Coverage, SR, and RIR use percentages. Unresolved denotes ambiguous semantic or condition matches; uncertain follow-ups ( U ) are zero in all scopes.
Large language model (LLM) agents are moving beyond reactive responses toward proactive assistance that anticipates user needs without explicit requests. However, existing proactive agents primarily address immediate needs, while many everyday situations involve delayed intentions that can only be acted on hours or days later. Humans handle such intentions through prospective memory, the ability to remember to act on an intention when the right moment arises. In this paper, we introduce ProMemAgent, the first proactive agent to incorporate prospective memory over everyday sensory contexts for long-horizon proactive assistance. ProMemAgent organizes past sensory perceptions (e.g., egocentric video and audio) into context-aware memory, generating prospective cues and linking earlier events with subsequent developments for future retrieval. Given the current context, it retrieves relevant past events and performs memory-augmented proactive reasoning to determine whether assistance is needed. We further introduce CPMBench, the first benchmark for evaluating long-horizon proactive assistance over sensory contexts, comprising 1,000 instances across eight everyday categories. Extensive experiments show that ProMemAgent achieves the best memory retrieval performance and consistently outperforms all baselines on long-horizon proactive assistance.
Memory management is vital for LLM agents in long-term and personalized interactions. Most previous work studies how to retrieve and use memory, but pays less attention to how memory is extracted. We find two main limitations in existing methods. First, extraction is "ahead-of-time": the agent saves information before it knows future tasks. A single summary prompt often mixes details, events, and relations, so useful information is lost. Second, extraction is usually one-off. Without verification, errors and hallucinations may stay in memory for a long time. To address these limitations, we propose ProMem, a proactive memory extraction framework. It separates details, events, and relations, and uses different extraction strategies for each type. It also checks completeness to recover missed events and verifies facts at the atomic level to reduce hallucinations. Experiments show that ProMem improves memory completeness and QA accuracy, while keeping a good balance between quality and token cost.
Chengyuan Yang, Zequn Sun, Wei Wei +1
State Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China · National Institute of Healthcare Data Science, Nanjing University, China
Proactive agents are expected to anticipate user needs and provide autonomous assistance by perceiving environmental context without explicit instructions. A fundamental capability of such agents is to identify and track users' upcoming events, enabling continuous and event-specific assistance. For example, by recording the time and location of a planned hike, an agent can deliver weather reminders in advance or provide navigation support before departure. However, existing works on proactive agents largely overlook event-centric assistance, and the open-ended nature of proactive assistance poses challenges for reliable evaluation. To bridge these gaps, we introduce ProEvent, the first event-centric benchmark designed to assess an agent's ability to proactively maintain a user's timetable based on ongoing instant messaging chats. ProEvent provides synthesized yet realistic chats that consider the dynamic interaction among users, concurrent chat threads, and noise in the real world, and evaluates proactive agents on response timing, single-step response correctness, and multi-step response correctness. Experiments on eight LLMs and pipelines reveal that current agents frequently overact and struggle with event cancellation. Notably, even GPT-5.1 only reacts correctly in 26.7% of scenarios. Further qualitative analysis reveals fundamental limitations of current LLMs as proactive agents, particularly in detecting implicit events and reasoning from the user's first-person perspective.