TrackMem: Tracking Evolving Beliefs in Long-Horizon Financial Dialogue
Authors: Austin M. Y. Cheung, Harsh Vardhan Gupta, Go Nam Lui, Lok Kan Chan, Ginny Y. Wong, Simon See
Organizations: The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · FinCatch Ltd · City University of Hong Kong · NVIDIA AI Technology Center (NVAITC), NVIDIA
Memory systems for LLM agents are evaluated mostly on social dialogue, where facts accumulate and rarely change, so remembering reduces largely to finding the turn in which something was said. Financial dialogue breaks this assumption: figures are revised, stances shift without being restated, rules stated once govern later questions, and a single company is discussed under several analytical lenses. Memory systems that retrieve the passages most similar to a question, or the most recent ones, therefore return superseded values, miss rules that share no wording with the question, and cannot recover a stance spread across sessions. We present TrackMem, a per-speaker graph memory that tracks the history of figures, separates perspectives by entity and lens, and preserves each speaker's actions in chronological order. To evaluate it, we introduce FinLoCoMo, a benchmark of 15 long-horizon investment conversations with 765 questions in two splits: one following the LoCoMo categories and one targeting four failure modes. With two readers, TrackMem outperforms existing memory systems on both splits. On the failure-mode split it reaches 73.9% macro accuracy against 69.4% for the strongest baseline, with the largest gains on questions about revised figures (86.5% against 73.4%).
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Evidence recall against context length.
System
Update
Revision
Stance
Constraint
Aspect
Turn RAG
append
○
○
○
○
MemGPT
self-edit
◐
○
◐
○
Mem0
overwrite
◐
○
○
○
A-Mem
note links
○
○
○
○
Zep
invalidation
◐
○
○
○
O-Mem
attributes
○
○
◐
◐
Table 1: Failure modes each system addresses by design. ● addressed; ◐ partially; ○ not addressed.
Figure 2: Illustrative example from a long-horizon financial conversation. TrackMem stores each kind of information in its own structure and retrieves it by entity and kind. Recall is evaluated based on FinLoCoMo-Modes.
Standard split (464)
Modes split (301)
Single-hop
168
Revision
64
Multi-hop
76
Stance
50
Temporal
74
Constraint
148
Open-domain
73
Aspect
39
Adversarial
73
Table 2: FinLoCoMo questions (765 in total). Conversations average 27.3 sessions of 9.0 turns and 7.9k tokens.
Figure 3: Design of TrackMem
FinLoCoMo-Modes
Retrieval
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning
Method
Recall
Tokens
Rev.
Stance
Con.
Aspect
Macro
Micro
Rev.
Stance
Con.
Aspect
Macro
Micro
(64)
(50)
(148)
(39)
(301)
(64)
(50)
(148)
(39)
(301)
Mem0
0.42
311
54.0
12.8
66.3
27.0
40.0
50.0
48.4
15.0
47.3
32.1
35.7
40.2
A-Mem
0.70
3,687
69.4
56.1
79.3
59.2
66.0
70.7
76.6
61.0
80.7
65.4
70.9
74.6
MemGPT
0.55
2,656
73.4
55.1
76.5
72.4
69.4
71.8
80.5
66.0
76.4
83.3
76.5
76.4
Table 3: Main results (%). Rev. = Revision , Con. = Constraint . Recall : share of annotated evidence turns in the context. Micro is over successfully judged questions (range from 0 – 18 unjudged per cell).
Modes
Standard
Upstream ablation
Full memory
74.4
70.3
−C
70.6 ↓ 3.8
68.8 ↓ 1.5
−A
73.2 ↓ 1.2
69.3 ↓ 1.0
−P
74.0 ↓ 0.4
68.9 ↓ 1.4
Context ablation
Table 4: Micro accuracy after removing one component. Each block is a separate build and judge run, so its first row differs from Table 3 .
In production since
July 2026
Ingested turns
13,781
Nodes per user
604
Estimated model write cost per batch
\approx\0.005$
Ingestion delay (median)
19.0 min
Estimated query latency
3–5 s
Batches entering dead-letter queue
0.13%
Table 5: TrackMem deployment (Oct 2026).
Appendix figures & tables11 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Mean
Min
Max
Sessions
27.3
24
28
Turns
247
196
282
Turns per session
9.0
2
22
Days spanned
411
191
612
Turn text (tokens)
7.9k
5.6k
9.5k
Appendix
Table 6: Per-conversation statistics of FinLoCoMo.
Category
n
Evidence
Sessions
Span
Single-hop
168
1.11
1.05
0.08
Multi-hop
76
2.32
1.54
0.83
Temporal
74
2.01
1.95
1.78
Open-domain
73
5.07
3.25
3.29
Revision
64
4.25
3.55
9.03
Stance
50
3.90
2.60
5.36
Appendix
Table 7: Mean evidence turns, sessions cited and session span per question, by category.
Category
Generated
Kept
Blind
Other
Revision
78
38
23
17
Stance
72
33
31
8
Constraint
71
26
41
4
Aspect
74
9
22
43
All
295
106
117
72
Appendix
Table 8: Candidates removed by each filter in an earlier build of the Modes split. Blind : failed the blind check. Other : failed the structural, chance-floor or duplicate check.
Type
Question
Evidence
Retrieval trap
Gold
Revision
What discount rate is Sarah currently using for her SPG DCF?
D16:3 “Using 8.0% for SPG now, up from 7.75%.” D17:2 “10Y near 4.2% pushes my discount rate to 8.25%.”
D17:6 , the latest mention: “at 4.3% I’d bump SPG’s discount rate up another 25bps” (hypothetical)
8.25%
Stance
What data point caused Robert to first raise his XOM price target above $126?
D21:3 “126targetstillworksifBrentholdshere.”D22:3“94 Brent has me second-guessing my mid-cycle call … XOM’s 126targetneedsa5–10 bump.” D23:5 “updated my PT to 131from126.”
D23:5 states the raise but not its cause; D25:3 reports a later raise to $136
Brent reaching $94, prompting a late-cycle rethink
Constraint
Given Kenji’s trailing-stop discipline, at what price would his stop trigger on the Sony position he reloaded at ¥13,420?
D21:5 “30bps trailing, same as before … not giving back more than 0.3% on any single name.” D26:5 “picked up 1% Sony last Wednesday at ¥13,420.”
D26:5 matches the question but carries no rule; the rule is five sessions earlier
≈ ¥13,380
Aspect
How does Eleanor reconcile liking SPG’s valuation with her reluctance to size it up, and what risk lens dominates her hesitation?
D25:4 “SPG feels like the steadier play—100 shares there is sleep-at-night money.” D26:4 “Same CEO across two 90%+ payout names is a concentration risk red flag.” D26:10 “my 100 SPG shares at 6.65% yield still feel like the right anchor.”
D22:5 cites a different risk: “100 SPG shares funding that 6.65% yield with debt has me nervous”
Likes the 6.65% yield but holds at 100 shares; same-CEO concentration risk
Appendix
Table 9: Example questions from the Modes split. Evidence lists the turns (session:turn) the gold depends on; Retrieval trap is a turn that a similarity- or recency-based retriever is likely to return instead.
L1 domain
L2 subtopics
Fundamental analysis
Income statement, Balance sheet, Cash flow, Valuation, Management quality
Table 11: Closed vocabularies of the extraction schema.
Grounding
λe
λz
λt
Entity-anchored
0.10
0.02
0.02
Topic-anchored
0.03
0.08
0.05
Semantic-only
0.02
0.02
0.01
None returned
0.05
0.03
0.02
Appendix
Table 12: Weights of the entity, topic and tag terms of the view score, by the question’s grounding. The values are set by hand.
Figure 4: Write and read paths of the deployed TrackMem .
Turn RAG
TrackMem
Δ
revision
70.2
86.5
↑ 16.3
stance
65.3
61.5
↓ 3.8
Constraint
74.8
79.1
↑ 4.3
aspect
63.2
68.4
↑ 5.2
Macro
68.4
73.9
↑ 5.5
Recall
0.82
0.80
Appendix
Table 13: Equal retrieval budget on Modes: similarity retrieval over turns (no graph) and TrackMem , each showing about 27 turns.
Gemini
Nemotron
Method
Prec.
Rec.
F1
Prec.
Rec.
F1
Mem0
26.0
93.2
40.6
23.8
98.6
38.4
A-Mem
69.1
89.0
77.8
59.2
83.6
69.3
MemGPT
81.3
83.6
82.4
80.0
82.2
81.1
Graphiti (Zep)
19.0
71.2
30.0
15.5
82.2
26.1
O-Mem
22.5
52.1
31.4
21.9
57.5
31.7
Appendix
Table 14: Precision and recall of a decline. A true positive is a decline on one of the 73 unanswerable questions, counted over all 765 questions.
Call
Model
Max
Output fields
Extraction
Gemini
65,536
entities, relations, anchors, claims, attributes
Synthesis
Gemini
8,192
text and sentiment per (entity, topic) row
Resolver ψ
Gemini
1,024
stored quantity revised, or none
Router
Gemini
1,024
entities, topics, type, date, grounding
Reader
Gemini
1,024
value, answer, declined, support
Reader
Nemotron
8,192
as above
Appendix
Table 15: Model calls, all at temperature 0. Max : maximum output tokens. Gemini is gemini-3.1-flash-lite and Nemotron is nemotron-3.5-lightning . The first four calls build or query the memory of TrackMem (Appendix E.1 – E.4 ); the reader and judge are shared by all methods. The resolver runs only when a new commitment has stored candidates.
Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used as personalized assistants in high-stakes domains such as financial advising, yet it remains unclear whether they can maintain and update an individualized user model over long horizons. Existing personalized-memory benchmarks primarily test factual retention or rely on weakly constrained model-generated trajectories, leaving event-driven preference adaptation underexplored. We introduce FinPerMA, an event-grounded benchmark that evaluates personalized memory against frozen longitudinal investor trajectories. Its generation pipeline combines deterministic, theory-informed impact rules, controlled LLM narration, and automated quality screening; a Post-Shock checkpoint isolates whether an agent has integrated a material event into its persistent user model. On 2,994 questions from 276 personas, seven frontier LLMs and up to seven memory configurations remain far from saturated: no full-context configuration exceeds approximately 0.47 overall accuracy or approximately 39% on multiple-choice questions. Attribution analysis shows that summary-based memory often preserves factual details while losing the preference signals needed for personalization; simple retrieval can therefore outperform purpose-built memory systems, with the gap widening after shocks.
Long-term memory is essential for LLM-based agents to sustain interactions and reliably leverage distant history. However, existing memory systems typically process heterogeneous dialogue content through a uniform summarization and retrieval pipeline, leading to either excessive token consumption or irreversible loss of fine-grained evidence. We argue that historical dialogue content should be handled differently according to its compressibility, temporal dynamics, and fidelity requirements. Based on this insight, we propose LeanMem, a lightweight long-term memory framework. LeanMem first filters out low-value content, then stores informative segments as compact profile memory, temporally structured event memory, or source-grounded record memory, depending on the nature of the information. During maintenance, only dynamically evolving event memories are selectively updated, avoiding redundant consolidation of stable profiles and immutable records. During inference, LeanMem dynamically selects memory types and allocates retrieval budgets according to query-specific evidence demands, assembling relevant evidence on demand. On LoCoMo and LongMemEval-S with GPT-4.1-mini and Qwen3-8B, LeanMem improves accuracy over the strongest memory-based baseline in every setting, by up to 15.1 points, at the lowest or near-lowest construction cost, inference tokens, and latency. The code and datasets are included in the supplementary materials.
Long-term conversational large language model (LLM) agents require memory systems that can recover relevant evidence from historical interactions without overwhelming the answer stage with irrelevant context. However, existing memory systems, including hierarchical ones, still often rely solely on vector similarity for retrieval. It tends to produce bloated evidence sets: adding many superficially similar dialogue turns yields little additional recall, but lowers retrieval precision, increases answer-stage context cost, and makes retrieved memories harder to inspect and manage. To address this, we propose HiGMem (Hierarchical and LLM-Guided Memory System), a two-level event-turn memory system that allows LLMs to use event summaries as semantic anchors to predict which related turns are worth reading. This allows the model to inspect high-level event summaries first and then focus on a smaller set of potentially useful turns, providing a concise and reliable evidence set through reasoning, while avoiding the retrieval overhead that would be excessively high compared to vector retrieval. On the LoCoMo10 benchmark, HiGMem achieves the best F1 on four of five question categories and improves adversarial F1 from 0.54 to 0.78 over A-Mem, while retrieving an order of magnitude fewer turns. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/ZeroLoss-Lab/HiGMem.
Shuqi Cao, Jingyi He, Fei Tan
East China Normal University, Shanghai, China · Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China