Reglos: A Self-Evolving Personal Memory Agent with Recursive Self-Improvement
Abstract
Personal agents draw on past conversations to tailor their responses to each user. Their memory systems store and update what each user says, and coding agents now also rewrite the harness that turns this memory into the model's context. Such patches risk overfitting, because one tested only on the failures it targets can fix those cases and help nowhere else. We present Reglos, a training-free personal memory agent that tests whether harness changes help beyond the failures they were written to fix. Its self-evolving memory adds to each user's append-only record with every conversation, as new preferences supersede old ones and facts can be forgotten. Its harness improves through recursive self-improvement, in which a coding agent proposes patches from failure traces and a critic from a second model family screens each one for benchmark gaming. After the harness is frozen, a fixed evaluator decides which further patches to accept. With the same backbone behind every system, Reglos outperforms state-of-the-art memory systems such as Mem0, MemOS and EverOS, reaching 61.3% and 84.0% on PersonaMem-v2 and LongMemEval-S with Qwen3.8-27B, and 57.5% and 87.2% with GPT-5.6 Luna.
Figures & tables
| Qwen3.8-27B | GPT-5.6 Luna | |||||||||
| BEAM | BEAM | |||||||||
| Method | PM-v2 | LME-S | LoCoMo | 100K | 500K | PM-v2 | LME-S | LoCoMo | 100K | 500K |
| Context baselines | ||||||||||
| No memory | 40.0 | 6.0 | 0.1 | 26.6 | 23.3 | 30.6 | 6.8 | 0.1 | 27.2 | 25.3 |
| Full context | 49.3 | 68.0 | 86.6 | 57.3 | 40.8 | 44.6 | 68.8 | 90.0 | 56.0 | 39.9 |
| Raw retrieval | 53.3 | 78.8 | 84.7 | 64.2 | 57.2 | 50.6 | 80.8 | 88.1 | 60.7 | 55.5 |
| Baseline with our components | Accuracy | Reglos lead |
|---|---|---|
| EverOS + policy | 58.9 | |
| MemOS + policy | 58.4 | |
| Raw retrieval in Reglos harness | 58.1 | |
| Full context + policy | 55.6 | |
| Mem0 in Reglos harness | 50.5 | |
| Reglos | 61.3 |
| Where the failure arises (159 traced) | Share |
|---|---|
| Fact never stated in the conversation | 48% |
| Evidence in context, reader chose wrongly | 31% |
| Stated but never written to memory | 16% |
| Written but not recalled | 4% |
| Type (n) | Reglos | EverOS | RAG | MemOS | Mem0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Multi-session (133) | 76.7 | 72.9 | 66.9 | 66.2 | 64.7 |
| Temporal (133) | 84.2 | 83.5 | 75.2 | 75.2 | 43.6 |
| Knowledge update (78) | 85.9 | 85.9 | 88.5 | 79.5 | 75.6 |
| User facts (70) | 94.3 | 94.3 | 90.0 | 88.6 | 88.6 |
| Assistant said (56) | 98.2 | 67.9 | 100.0 | 60.7 | 73.2 |
| Preferences (30) | 60.0 | 76.7 | 56.7 | 63.3 | 73.3 |
| Step | Change | Acc. |
|---|---|---|
| engine | conversation-language storage; forget as retraction; implicit-preference rule | |
| seed | harness before any accepted harness step | 54.2 |
| v1 | + forgotten facts in context + memory-use policy | 57.1 |
| v2 | + per-option recall (full option text) | 56.4 |
| v3a | + revised policy (incomplete memory; sensitive identifiers) | 60.2 |
| v3 | + per-option recall on distinct words + raw excerpts | 60.7 |
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| System | Accuracy | Reglos lead |
|---|---|---|
| No memory | 40.0 | |
| + policy | 43.1 | |
| Full context (official) | 49.3 | |
| + policy | 55.6 | |
| Raw retrieval | 53.3 | |
| + policy | 58.0 |
| Category (n) | Reglos | EverOS | MemOS | Mem0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single-hop (841) | 92.9 | 86.7 | 81.3 | 74.2 |
| Multi-hop (282) | 83.0 | 73.0 | 69.1 | 72.7 |
| Temporal (321) | 83.2 | 82.9 | 72.6 | 5.0 |
| Open-domain (96) | 63.5 | 56.2 | 56.2 | 46.9 |
| Inner loop (per user, in deployment) | Outer loop (the harness, offline) | |
|---|---|---|
| Target | that user’s record, summaries, profile | harness code and prompts: extraction rules, retraction, recall and evidence construction, answer policy |
| Experience | the user’s conversations, calendar, corrections | failure traces on development splits: context, prediction, gold, recall explanations |
| Improver | the fixed write and consolidation pipeline | a proposer coding agent (Claude Code) and a critic from a second family (Codex) |
| Strategy | fixed rules: add-only extraction, merge adjudication, retraction, Dream | cluster failures, form a hypothesis, patch, evaluate |
| Verifier | fixed write rules plus user review (inspect, correct, delete, undo) | frozen evaluator, pre-registered acceptance rule, second reader |
| Inherited | the record itself (append-only history) | the accepted harness and the log of candidates and decisions |
LLM Agent Memory
Large language model agent memory lets agents retain, organize, retrieve, and update information across interactions and long-running tasks.
See all 385 papers