arXiv:2606. 11198v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems inject external knowledge to improve LLM outputs, yet the format of injected content -- distinct from its semantic relevance -- can independently distort the model's attention distribution.
arXiv:2608.28978v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Knowledge graphs have been proposed as a structured alternative to flat retrieval-augmented generation for long-term agent memory, on the assumption th...
arXiv:2608. 08055v1 Announce Type: new 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.
arXiv:2607.22629v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Reasoning Models produce long, explicit chains of intermediate steps before generating a final answer at inference time. These intermediate t...
arXiv:2606. 09900v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Long-term memory is the missing layer for LLM agents: across sessions they forget, and the common workaround -- replaying the whole history into the prompt -- is expensive, slow, and, as distractors accumulate, less accurate.
arXiv:2603.21676v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Standard Transformers have a fixed computational depth, limiting their ability to generalize to tasks that require variable-depth reasoning....
Agent Zero Memory is a provenance‑aware long‑term memory system for large language model agents that distills user interactions into three parallel memory structures: an episodic timeline, an associative entity‑event knowledge graph, and a semantic, citation‑locked hierarchical documentary memory. Retrieval is performed via an intent gate, source router, and concurrent searches across the three systems, producing integrated, cited answers that exclude fabrication and require evidence the reader has opened. The system achieves state‑of‑the‑art performance on LongMemEval (95.60%) and LoCoMo (93.60%) while offering a favorable accuracy‑cost‑latency trade‑off across multiple backbone LLMs.
The paper introduces Procedural Graphs, a framework that structures procedural knowledge for large language model agents as (procedure, relation, procedure) triplets, analogous to knowledge graphs for factual data. At each decision point, a guidance model uses the local subgraph to bias the agent’s next action, while an LLM refiner self‑evolves the graph by comparing failed and successful trajectories, editing its topology to improve performance. Experiments across various datasets, tasks, and LLMs show that Procedural Graphs consistently outperform memory‑based baselines, and the self‑evolution mechanism further enhances results without manual engineering.
VisKG‑LM proposes compiling retrieved knowledge graph subgraphs into static visual memories rather than re‑encoding them during each inference step. The method serializes each subgraph as Relation‑Labeled Paths, renders them as images that preserve the graph’s branching structure, and caches these images for reuse. At inference, a language model processes the question and candidate text first, then consults the cached visual memory only at its final layer, yielding improved performance on CommonsenseQA, OpenBookQA, and MedQA‑USMLE compared to both text‑only baselines and a large vision‑language model.
arXiv:2606. 26511v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) gives agents access to accumulated knowledge, but has no model of time.
arXiv:2509. 14704v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Benchmark saturation and training-data contamination increasingly obscure whether reported gains in large language models (LLMs) reflect genuine advances in reasoning or familiarity with recurring patterns in benchmark problems.
The paper investigates a parametric approach to knowledge graph memory by compiling each entity into a LoRA adapter, enabling zero‑cost query-time retrieval via weight injection. On the MetaQA dataset, these adapters encode context‑free factual knowledge, improving exact‑match scores by up to +0.243 over a base model and achieving an oracle gap of +0.283. However, the stored knowledge is not recoverable through similarity or embedding‑based methods, indicating that knowledge is stored locally and does not transfer across semantically neighboring entities.