Skip to content
Preprint

SodaMem: Evidence-Grounded Temporal Graph Memory for LLM Agents

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 48 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

SodaMem is presented, an evidence-grounded temporal graph memory that extracts typed FactEvents with mandatory provenance spans, persists mention time, occurrence time, and validity with SUPERSEDES/CONTRADICTS/UPDATES edges under hybrid lexical-dense indexing and answers via a planner-reader loop that gathers citable evidence before composing a final response.

Abstract

Large language model (LLM) agents that assist users over weeks of conversation must remember what is currently true, not merely what was once said. Flat RAG diaries and Markdown logs optimize needle retrieval but under-serve currency, provenance, and ordered temporal reasoning (Maharana et al. 2024; Wu et al. 2024; Packer et al. 2023; Chhikara et al. 2025). We present SodaMem, an evidence-grounded temporal graph memory that (i) extracts typed FactEvents with mandatory provenance spans, (ii) persists mention time, occurrence time, and validity with SUPERSEDES/CONTRADICTS/UPDATES edges under hybrid lexical-dense indexing, and (iii) answers via a planner-reader loop that gathers citable evidence before composing a final response. On LongMemEval-S, our store-of-record configuration reaches 92.8% accuracy (464/500; best of N=3) at mean $0.00161/question (approximately 18.3k tokens; median $0.00111 / approximately 14.6k) with deepseek-v4-flash. We compile public systems with estimable API cost into a cost table and cost-accuracy map; under these estimates SodaMem sits near the accuracy frontier at Flash-tier spend and strictly dominates several higher-cost, lower-accuracy points. Accuracy uses the same Flash model as reader and judge (self-grading); costs exclude ingest/judge and cross-system comparisons are compiled estimates rather than a single-harness bake-off.Our code is available at https://github.com/SodaMem/SodaMem

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Aug 2026

Weighted Memory Tree: Remembering What Matters for Long-Horizon LLM Agents

Large language model (LLM) agents have demonstrated the ability to solve multi-step tasks requiring planning, tool use, and external information access, yet growing execution histories increase inference cost and expose reasoning to outdated, irrelevant, or misleading information, potentially degrading reasoning quality. Existing memory approaches organize or compress execution histories but provide limited mechanisms for deciding which memories remain active. We introduce the, a hierarchical memory system that organizes execution into tasks, subtasks, and actions while assigning each memory a dynamic retention score. Event-based updates and selection-based decay revise these scores, allowing WMT to preserve useful information, fold completed trajectories, suppress low-utility content, and retain access to folded context. We evaluate WMT on GAIA-Text using Qwen3-8B, Gemma 4 E4B, and Llama-3.1-8B, with ablations and memory-poisoning experiments. Relative to linear memory, WMT improves accuracy by an average of 9.97 percentage points while reducing prompt-token usage by 32.8%. Memory-poisoning experiments show that WMT limits the persistence and propagation of unreliable information. Our results suggest that effective long-horizon agent memory depends less on storing more information than on deciding which information should remain active.

Quang Dao, Purvi Kathalkar, Kenneth Eaton · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

TGMS: An Agent-Native Bi-Temporal Graph Management System

Temporal graph questions require reliable handling of time, identifiers, and arithmetic. Large language model (LLM) agents often fail on these tasks, especially when a graph records both ordinary evolution and later corrections. We present TGMS, a bi-temporal property graph management system that exposes thirteen verified temporal operators as agent tools. Each operator is typed, deterministic, bounded, cost-guarded, and bi-temporal by default. The LLM plans operator calls and writes the final response, while the system performs all graph computation. Numeric, entity, ordering, and pattern claims are checked against the content-addressed execution trace. TGMS separates valid time from transaction time. It can therefore answer belief-state questions such as ``as of transaction time $T$, what did the system believe?''Standard latest-state snapshots and retrieval pipelines do not preserve enough information to answer such questions. On a development benchmark built from a real communication network, TGMS with a 14B open-source model reaches 0.409 exact match. Vector-RAG, static-graph RAG, and text-to-Cypher reach 0.045--0.182 under the same serving setup. TGMS reaches 0.67 exact match on correction probes, while the three 14B baselines score zero. The claim verifier detects all 500 injected count and entity errors with no false positives on the clean answers. Two implementation findings were especially important. First, operator output contracts prevent plans from referring to fields that do not exist. Second, verification must track whether the cited evidence is complete, because correct arithmetic over a truncated result is still misleading. The code, benchmark, and trace viewer are open source under Apache-2.0.

Xiaofei Zhang · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

FluctlightDB: A Memory Model of Data for AI Agents

For fifty years, data systems have answered two questions. The relational model asked which records match a predicate; the vector model asked which vectors lie nearest a query. Neither was built for cue-driven, provenance-weighted recall across long sessions. We propose treating long-term agent memory as a distinct data model -- with its own write semantics (encoding, separation, consolidation, provenance) and read semantics (cue-driven activation across a linked memory graph) -- and present FluctlightDB, an embedded engine that implements this contract via experience() and activate(). We make that case carefully, not categorically: we do not claim novelty over Mem0, Zep, or HippoRAG-style memory layers, only an embedded engine contract beneath them. On LoCoMo (official evidence-recall metric; 10 conversations, 1,982 gold spans), CHORUS recalls 99.0% on an internally reproduced July 2026 run. On LongMemEval-S (500 questions, official session_recall@8), our retrieval harness scores 97.6% (488/500); end-to-end QA with our reader/judge stack scores 97.4% (487/500) -- these layers use different protocols than vendor leaderboard figures we cite for context only. On BEIR SciFact (shared MiniLM embeddings, same harness, Recall Fabric on), CHORUS/PRISM edges Chroma on nDCG@10 (0.646 vs. 0.645) and Recall@10 (0.792 vs. 0.783). We also report a small author-designed regression suite (FAMB; paraphrase n=10, other sub-tests n=1) at 100% macro -- internal validation, not peer benchmark. Strangers can verify the engine in under a minute via pip install"fluctlightdb[native]"and a minimal connect() ->experience() ->activate() script (compiled wheel, not source-only). Harnesses and frozen JSON are MIT-licensed. We claim no new neuroscience and no new transformer; we propose a missing layer of the data stack and release an engine others can reproduce and contest.

S. Ganesh · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

ChronoMem: Version Control and Semantic Rollback for Large Language Model Agent Memory

LLM agents increasingly rely on long-term memory to support multi-session interaction and personalization. However, existing agent memory systems are designed around forward-only evolution, continuously accumulating, consolidating, and overwriting knowledge, with no principled mechanism to inspect, version, or revert prior states. This makes agents brittle under corrections, concept drift, and memory corruption, particularly after they have already been exposed to subsequent information. We present ChronoMem, a semantic version-control layer for agentic memory integrated into the production-ready, open-source Agent Development Kit by Google. ChronoMem commits whole-memory snapshots at each memory write, maintains structured version histories, and supports natural-language rollback requests by mapping undo intents to concrete historical versions through hybrid lexical and semantic retrieval, rank fusion, and reranking. We further introduce a post-exposure evaluation protocol that tests whether an agent can behave counterfactually after rollback by answering queries and summarizing history as if future updates had never occurred. On long-horizon conversational benchmarks augmented with evolving memory states and rollback tasks, ChronoMem substantially improves rollback-consistent question answering and history summarization relative to prompt-only and retrieval-only baselines, while achieving strong performance in semantic version selection. To our knowledge, ChronoMem is the first open-source system and benchmark for systematic semantic global memory rollback in LLM agents.

Yongye Su, Wujiang Xu, Chaoji Zuo et al. · 1 citation
Preprint Jul 2026

RECON: Benchmarking Agent Memory for Compositional Reasoning over Long Contexts

Large language models and LLM-based agents are widely used as personal chat assistants, enterprise copilots, and autonomous workflow agents. In all these applications, memory (the ability to retain, access, and reason over information accumulated over long contexts and multiple interactions) plays a crucial role in determining the reliability of any agent. We introduce RECON (Reasoning over Extended Contexts with Obfuscated Narratives), a benchmark for evaluating compositional reasoning over long contexts. RECON spans 24 case files across three domains (criminal, medical, and financial), each ranging from 50k to 100k tokens, and tests agents on six memory intensive tasks: reconstructing multi-hop evidence chains, propagating cascading invalidations, resolving source conflicts, counterfactual reasoning, satisfying temporal constraints, and temporal fact retrieval. Recent memory benchmarks evaluate whether agents can retrieve scattered facts or detect if a fact has changed whereas RECON evaluates what happens after the change, whether agents can trace which downstream conclusions are affected, which survive through independent support, and how alternative timelines would have unfolded. Our evaluation reveals substantial limitations across current architectures: even the strongest non-Oracle system reaches only 22.4% Accuracy, with retrieval and reasoning each surfacing as challenges.

M. S. Arya · 0 citations
Preprint Jul 2026

Track, Rank, Crack: Epistemic Working Memory Scales Multi-Hop Reasoning in Language Agents

Language agents that interleave reasoning and tool use degrade sharply as reasoning chains lengthen, even when each individual step is easy. We trace this to context dilution: an agent's investigative state (what it has confirmed, what it suspects, and what it still needs) lives only implicitly in a growing context window, where early discoveries are buried under later retrievals. We introduce SLEUTH, which makes this state explicit and actionable through a structured epistemic working memory: the agent maintains Confirmed Facts grounded to sources, Active Hypotheses ranked by evidence, and Open Questions that directly drive its next action. Across five multi-hop benchmarks and five established baselines, SLEUTH's advantage grows with difficulty, from +5 points on HotpotQA to +11 on 4-hop chains, surpassing Reflexion without multiple episodes. Analyzing where the remaining gap lies, we identify the evidence sufficiency problem: agents often find the answer but fail to commit, exhausting their budget on needless verification. A lightweight commitment trigger fixes this, but only when the agent already maintains structured state: the identical trigger applied to an unstructured agent yields no improvement, isolating organized epistemic state as the necessary condition for effective commitment. Finally, enforcing protocol adherence on a weaker model recovers up to +19 points on the hardest problems, showing that how an agent organizes its reasoning, not raw model capability, is the active ingredient for scaling multi-hop reasoning.

Ning Liu · 0 citations