A memory can be outdated for present-day reasoning yet indispensable for reconstructing the past. Relevance-based retrieval overlooks this tension: semantic relevance, evidence-grounded validity, and query-specific eligibility are distinct. We propose CALM, a conflict-aware lifecycle memory governance framework that decouples persistent memory preservation from query-time admission. CALM converts heterogeneous records into evidence-grounded memory cells, updates validity and lifecycle states using support, conflict, and dependency signals, and admits query-appropriate evidence through training-free or learned gating informed by temporal applicability. Across LongMemEval-S and LoCoMo with Qwen and GPT backbones, CALM outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, achieving the best overall accuracy. Compared with simple filtering and reranking, query-conditioned admission further improves evidence selection. Conflict-blocking and robustness analyses show CALM suppresses erroneous retrieved memories while retaining useful evidence. Historical-reconstruction experiments demonstrate that preserving superseded records supports accurate earlier-state reasoning without compromising current-state answers.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Schematic comparison of relevance-only retrieval and CALM. CALM retains earlier records for historical queries while excluding incompatible evidence from current-state reasoning.
Figure 2: Overview of CALM. (a) Evidence-Grounded Memory Adaptation converts heterogeneous backend records into canonical memory cells. (b) Lifecycle-Aware Memory Governance updates their validity and lifecycle states using support, conflict, dependency, and temporal signals. (c) Query-Conditioned Memory Gating admits eligible memories via CALM-ZS or CALM , while retaining non-admitted memories in persistent storage for traceability and future compatible queries.
Table 1: Main results on LongMemEval. Accuracy (%) by method across question types. SS denotes single-session, Pref. preference, Asst. assistant, K-Upd. knowledge-update, Multi multi-session, and Temp. temporal reasoning. The best and second-best results within each backbone are shown in bold and underlined, respectively.
Method
Overall
S-Hop
M-Hop
Open
Temp.
Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507
Mem0
59.09
65.16
54.26
45.83
51.40
MemOS
76.04
81.81
73.76
59.38
67.91
EverMemOS
87.99
92.75
86.17
70.83
82.24
LightMem
72.01
78.60
72.34
57.29
58.88
CALM-ZS
85.78
92.15
84.04
67.71
76.01
Table 2: Main results on LoCoMo.
Variant
EMB ↑
UMR ↑
CL ↓
No-gating
0.00
100.00
100.00
CALM-ZS
79.32
67.76
21.68
CALM
81.30
72.06
20.00
Table 3: Conflict-blocking performance.
Variant
Overall Acc. ( ↑ )
Stage-wise ablations
w/o Stage I
69.80
w/o Stage II
75.60
w/o Stage III
74.00
Simple filtering and reranking
Temporal-Filter
74.40
Table 4: Stage-wise ablations and simple alternatives on LongMemEval-S with Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507.
Figure 3: Performance of memory management strategies in reconstructing current and historical states.
Variant
Overall ↑
K-Upd. ↑
Temp. ↑
w/o Conflict
73.00
89.74
62.41
w/o Temporal
72.60
88.46
60.15
w/o Validity
72.40
87.18
63.16
w/o Compatibility
74.20
89.74
63.91
w/o Risk
75.20
89.74
64.66
CALM
79.60
91.03
68.42
Table 5: Lifecycle and gating ablation results.
Figure 4: Accuracy across memory-token budgets.
Method
Acc. ↑
Tok. ↓
R/G ↓
Ans. ↓
Total ↓
EverMemOS
66.40
2775
46.05/–
14.39
61.65
CALM-ZS
76.60
3850
6.02 / 0.40
1.44
12.00
CALM
79.60
3971
6.02 / 1.03
1.49
12.84
Table 6: Results on query-time efficiency.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Evidence source
Weight ν
LongMemEval-S
Raw dialogue span
0.74
Rule-derived span
0.82
Session anchor
0.62
LoCoMo
Dialogue turn
0.72
Observation
0.95
Event summary
0.88
Appendix
Table 7: Source reliability weights used for evidence aggregation. The weights are fixed heuristic values determined by evidence provenance and granularity. They are not calibrated probabilities of factual correctness and are not tuned on evaluation instances.
Weighting Strategy
Accuracy (%)
No weighting ( ν=1 )
78.4
Uniform weighting ( ν=0.75 )
78.9
Source-specific weighting
79.6
Appendix
Table 8: Sensitivity analysis of source reliability weighting on LongMemEval-S with Qwen3-30B-A3B-Instruct-2507.
Relation
Evidence considered
Operational scoring rule
Decision criterion
Support
Exact matches after lowercasing and whitespace normalization; accumulated evidence and source confidence.
Identical normalized records are merged, with evidence counts and confidence updated. No independent support-edge score fsup is computed.
Exact normalized match; no θsup .
Conflict
Matching entity–attribute slots or compatible personal claims; preference polarity, constraints, location changes, and task status.
Link if a rule matches; no global θdep . Verify at cascade risk Di≥0.70 ; mark stale for superseded sources with fdep≥0.80 .
Appendix
Table 9: Operational relation construction and decision criteria in the CALM implementation.
Dataset
Category
Questions
LongMemEval-S
SS-User
70
SS-Pref.
30
SS-Asst.
56
K-Upd.
78
Multi
133
Temp.
133
Appendix
Table 10: Question distributions of the evaluated benchmark subsets. LoCoMo adversarial questions are excluded from the reported results.
Stage
Hit ↑
FullHit ↑
AvgRecall ↑
Initial Retrieval
100.00
94.80
97.99
Post-Gating
100.00
94.60
97.84
Final Packing
100.00
93.00
97.18
Additional Metric
Value
Packed-Hit Accuracy
79.6
Appendix
Table 11: Evidence-coverage diagnostics across retrieval, gating, and context packing. All values are reported as percentages.
Post-retrieval policy
Acc. (%)
Validity-Rerank
77.20
CALM-ZS
76.60
CALM
79.60
Hard Filter + Relevance
76.00
Hard Filter + Validity-Rerank
78.00
Hard Filter + Learned Rerank
78.40
Appendix
Table 12: Illustrative comparison of matched post-retrieval admission controls on LongMemEval-S. All methods share retrieved candidates, answer model, and memory-token budget.
Variant
Erroneous-Memory Injection Ratio
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
CALM
79.8
78.8
77.6
76.2
74.6
72.8
Relevance-Only
75.4
74.6
72.2
69.6
66.8
56.6
w/o Stage III
74.0
71.2
68.0
64.6
61.0
57.2
Appendix
Table 13: Accuracy (%) under increasing erroneous-memory injection ratios. The candidate-set size and final memory-token budget are held constant across methods. Bold values indicate the best performance at each injection level.
Method
512
1024
2048
Full
EverMemOS
29.60
53.80
62.40
66.40
CALM-ZS
38.00
58.40
69.80
76.60
CALM
39.20
60.20
74.60
79.60
Appendix
Table 14: Exact accuracy (%) under different memory-token budgets on LongMemEval-S.
Long-term LLM agents must preserve information across interactions while distinguishing repeated evidence, historical states, updates, and unresolved contradictions. Existing textual memory systems retrieve semantically relevant memories efficiently but often leave these relationships implicit, whereas richer structured approaches model them through global graphs, hierarchical abstractions, or reflection at greater complexity. We introduce MemoryLACE (MemLACE), a lightweight memory framework that explicitly models the lifecycle of textual evidence through sparse merge, supersession, and contradiction relations while preserving atomic natural-language memories and their provenance. Rather than retrieving memories independently, MemLACE reconstructs relation-aware evidence units that expose current, historical, supporting, and conflicting evidence for downstream reasoning. Across BEAM and StructMemEval, using open-weight and proprietary LLM backbones, MemLACE achieves the highest overall performance in same-backbone comparisons while reducing end-to-end runtime on BEAM by 66.6% relative to Hindsight, the strongest reported reflective-memory baseline. Ablation studies identify lifecycle expansion and temporal awareness as the principal contributors to these gains. Together, the results demonstrate that explicitly modeling the local lifecycle of textual evidence is sufficient to substantially improve long-term memory reasoning without requiring comprehensive knowledge graphs or global reflection.
Meriem Yacoubi, Pia Schmidt, Nenad Petrovic +3
Chair of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence and Real-Time Systems, Technical University of Munich · inovex GmbH · Cerebras Systems Inc.
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.
Long-term memory enables large language model (LLM) agents to leverage historical interactions for future tasks. However, existing memory systems struggle to utilize continuously evolving historical information, as they often rely on static memory representations and single-round retrieval strategies, failing to track factual changes or integrate distributed evidence across long-term interactions. To address these challenges, we propose EMIR2, an Evolution-Aware Memory framework with Intent-Guided Multi-Round Retrieval, enabling LLM agents to maintain evolving historical knowledge and adaptively retrieve relevant evidence. Specifically, EMIR2 constructs a State-Evolving Memory Graph (SEMG) that represents long-term memory as evolving knowledge states supported by temporal event trajectories and evidential associations. By maintaining semantic states through evidence-based updates, SEMG preserves historical evolution and enables evidence tracing under complex and conflicting scenarios. Building upon this, we introduce an intent-guided multi-round retrieval mechanism that iteratively identifies missing evidence and expands retrieval based on accumulated information. Experiments on LoCoMo and MemConflict demonstrate that EMIR2 improves long-term memory utilization, dynamic and static conflict handling, and complex retrieval performance, achieving relative improvements of more than 12% in certain categories. These results highlight the effectiveness of jointly modeling memory evolution and adaptive evidence acquisition for long-term agent interactions.
Jinlan Liu, Hongliang Sun, Yong Wang +4
Department of Computer Science, Weihai & Qingdao Research Institute Harbin Institute of Technology Weihai, China