CompCQR: Compositional Query Generation for Training-Free Conversational Search
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606.01697v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We propose RCEM, a Robust Conversational search EMbedder that is additionally equipped with LLM's query reformulation capability without losing bas...
arXiv:2609.07093v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enables large language models (LLMs) to answer questions by accessing external knowledge and has been widely a...
arXiv:2607. 22690v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Long-term memory lets LLM agents reuse past interactions, but raw dialogue histories are verbose and information-sparse.
arXiv:2504. 20114v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems face significant challenges in multi-hop question answering (MHQA), where complex queries require synthesizing information across multiple document chunks.
The paper introduces TriMem, a memory system for lifelong LLM agents that stores raw dialogue segments, extracted atomic facts, and synthesized profiles to preserve detail, enable efficient retrieval, and support deep reasoning. It uses TextGrad-based prompt optimization to iteratively refine extraction and profiling prompts without updating model parameters. Experiments on LoCoMo and PerLTQA show TriMem outperforms strong memory baselines across multiple LLM backbones.
Entity-Memory graph retrieval preserves dialogue turns as verbatim memory nodes, links repeated mentions via shared entities, and connects adjacent memories with chronological edges. During retrieval, the system gates through entities, fuses semantics, and performs one‑hop chronological recovery before dense backfill, allowing it to keep neighboring memories that dense cosine ranking might miss. On 1,986 questions from ten LoCoMo conversations, this graph retrieval method increases official evidence recall at top‑k 25 from 79.7468 % to 84.4842 %, with the advantage extending from top‑k 5 to 50, though it does not improve overall final‑answer F1.