It is argued that scientific memory should be evaluated as budgeted, modality-aware context restoration rather than as an unconstrained architecture leaderboard, and the datasets, harness, raw outputs, judgments, and scripts are released to reproduce the results and serve as tools for such evaluation.
Abstract
Long-term memory is becoming a core component of LLM agents, but most memory benchmarks evaluate conversations or compact summaries, while research agents need to restore evidence from full scientific papers. We introduce two full-text scientific-memory benchmarks, Public AI Memory (PAIM; 81 papers, 66 questions) and Public Transformers (PTr; 252 papers, 98 questions). We evaluate eight memory/retrieval systems, including our own proposed Theoria, plus a no-retrieval baseline. Our results show that memory leaderboards are not interpretable without the full protocol: ingestion granularity, raw-text preservation, retrieval budget, retrieval modality, rubric audit, and judge choice all affect the outcome. For example, on PAIM Graphiti wins convincingly but uses 2.6M characters of retrieved context per query, and after controlling for retrieval budget the lead disappears. On PTr, for the systems where BM25 retrieval can be added cleanly, the sparse-dense hybrid is the single most significant intervention: hybrid variants of Simple RAG, Mem0, and Theoria tie for the lead within 0.03 points. Multi-judge and human side-by-side calibration show that LLM-as-a-judge rankings are consistent across frontier judges and agree with human evaluation, with an effective resolution of roughly one point on a ten-point scale. We argue that scientific memory should be evaluated as budgeted, modality-aware context restoration rather than as an unconstrained architecture leaderboard, and we release the datasets, harness, raw outputs, judgments, and scripts to reproduce our results and serve as tools for such evaluation. Our code is available at http://gitlab.com/quantellence/research/scientific-recall-bench , and the datasets are available at http://huggingface.co/datasets/quantellence/srb-data .
UtilMem is introduced, a diagnostic benchmark comprising 1,717 instances across five domains, designed to evaluate four underexplored aspects of memory utilization: reasoning over dense histories, identifying implicitly relevant memories, synthesizing distributed evidence into summaries, analyses, or plans, and resisting interference from semantically similar distractors.
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, shows that no single substrate consistently dominates.
Wei-Chieh Huang, Weizhi Zhang, Yu-Chen Wu et al.· 0 citations
This study compares MemoryLake, a structured multi-track memory backend, with Mem0, text-embedding-3-small vector RAG, and a long-context control across all five MemoryArena domains, to support a workload-dependent view of memory backends and an observed lead among the four evaluated systems.
Chao-Shun Zhan, Qiang Zhou, Guannan Li et al.· 0 citations
The ability to handle long-term memory in LLMs is becoming increasingly critical, yet existing benchmarks remain English-centric and rely on aggregate retrieval metrics, failing to capture interactions between long-range context, temporal information, and reasoning. To address this, we introduce RUMBA (Russian User Memory BenchmArk) - a new benchmark for long-term conversational memory that provides a fine-grained taxonomy of memory-centric question types and a unified methodology accounting for semantic type, session scope, temporal reasoning, and the explicitness of temporal expressions. RUMBA consists of timestamped user-assistant dialogues with QA pairs requiring retrieval, combination, and reasoning across sessions. While designed for Russian, we also provide an aligned English subset under the same methodology. We evaluate contemporary memory systems and long-context models, and show how RUMBA serves as a diagnostic tool to analyze model behavior across benchmark slices and identify strengths and failure modes of different memory mechanisms.
E.D. Shevtsova, Inna Glebkina, Mark Baushenko et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Long-running conversational agents increasingly rely on a memory system to avoid resending the whole conversation each turn, yet how much that costs to serve has received little systematic benchmarking. We compare three memory systems (Mem0, Hindsight, and Mastra Observational Memory) against two reference strategies -- a fixed-size rolling window and resubmitting the full transcript -- across two backbones and conversations of up to 400 turns, pairing every cost measurement with answer accuracy on 665 LoCoMo questions. First, a memory system's serving cost cannot be predicted from conversation length and message size alone: a regression that tracks the two reference strategies closely misses the memory systems by 18-69%, their cost driven instead by internal memory behavior. Second, a break-even analysis shows that whether -- and when -- a memory system becomes cheaper to serve than the full transcript is highly sensitive to the system and the backbone, from the first tens of turns for the cheapest to never within 400 turns for the most expensive. Third, no system wins on both axes: accuracy spans 21-54%, and the backbone choice drives cost as much as the memory system does.
Large language models (LLMs) are increas- ingly deployed as long-horizon conversational agents, motivating growing interest in mem- ory systems. However, existing benchmarks primarily evaluate memory through QA-style probing rather than in-situ conversational usage. We introduce LOCOMO-CONV, a conversa- tional memory benchmark derived from Lo- CoMo with four query styles: dialog, implicit, counterfactual, and composed. Across five rep- resentative memory systems, we evaluate both retrieval recall and end-to-end response qual- ity. Our experiments show that conversational framing exposes substantial retrieval gaps over- looked by QA benchmarks, especially on im- plicit and composed queries, which multi-facet query rewriting narrows for raw-turn mem- ory but not abstractive memory. We further find that strong retrieval does not fully trans- late into response quality, and that implicit queries exhibit silent grounding, where mem- ory improves contextual grounding without ex- plicitly surfacing the gold fact. These results point to reasoning-based memory elaboration as a promising direction, and we release aux- iliary supportive_memory annotations captur- ing conversationally useful context beyond the original gold evidence.
Wen-Yu Chang, Yun-Nung Chen· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
