arXiv AI By Anouar Imel, Imad Charradi, Abderrahman Sghir, Khalil El Khammar

Rare, Relevant, and Still Wrong: How Memory Fails LLM Group Decisions

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper investigates how short memory representations of large‑language‑model (LLM) group discussions affect final decision quality. It introduces CrossProfile, a benchmark of 480 hidden‑profile tasks that separates supporting, decoy, and irrelevant facts while keeping their wording constant. Experiments with Qwen2.5‑7B, Llama‑3.1‑8B, and DeepSeek models show that heuristics based on rarity or relevance both fail in predictable ways, and that the decision model’s social‑proof bias further degrades accuracy. Removing attribution tags or randomizing them improves performance, yet natural transcripts still lose more evidence than no notes at all.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Sep 30

Mnemon: Raw Records, Fast Judgments, Slow Thoughts

Mnemon is a memory agent that stores conversations as raw, dated records and uses a fast System 1 decision model (Jev) to quickly judge the relevance of records, while a slow System 2 LLM plans searches and composes answers. The agent consolidates records into topic timelines and value histories in the background, enabling efficient retrieval without rewriting conversations into structured formats. Experiments show Mnemon achieving high scores on LoCoMo and LongMemEval‑S with low context length and cost, and Jev outperforming LLMs in evidence separation and speed.

By Guangren Wang
arXiv AI
Sep 4

Learning What Not to Forget: Long-Horizon Agent Memory from a Few Kilobytes of Learning

The paper introduces LRE (Learned Relevance Eviction), a lightweight, CPU‑only, language‑model‑free scorer that learns which parts of an agent’s interaction history are task‑critical and preserves them verbatim. In experiments, LRE matches or surpasses baseline eviction policies on accuracy‑cost trade‑offs, recovers 93% of full‑history accuracy, reduces worst‑case prompt size by 52%, and outperforms dense and token‑pruning encoders in conversational memory while being 295–1569× smaller. The method also achieves superior budgeted answer quality on LoCoMo reading and can be trained annotation‑free, recovering 95% of supervised scorer performance.

By Nusrat Jahan Lia, Aritra Mazumder
arXiv AI
Sep 10

When Does Memory Help? A Cost-Aware Evaluation of Long-Term Memory in Tool-Using LLM Agents

The paper introduces MERIT, a benchmark that evaluates the marginal benefit of long‑term memory for tool‑using large language model agents while explicitly accounting for cost. MERIT provides episodic tool‑use tasks across three domains, verifies dependence on earlier‑episode facts, and measures memory operations in tokens and dollars. Experiments on GPT‑4.1‑mini, Claude Haiku 4.5, and Claude Sonnet 5 show that memory can significantly improve task success, but its utility varies widely across models and memory implementations, and full replay is rarely cost‑effective.

By Shweta Mishra, Shashank Mishra
arXiv AI
Oct 19

Beyond Marginal Influence: Interaction-Aware Memory Selection for LLM Agents

The paper introduces JointCoreBench, a benchmark for evaluating memory selection in large language model agents, and JointCore, a cost‑ordered group‑deletion baseline that identifies minimal sufficient memory subsets. JointCore achieves perfect recovery of minimum‑cost sufficient sets across 6,912 conditions, cuts subset evaluations by 62.9%, and saves 87.8% of active memory usage. Experiments across multiple model families and tasks demonstrate that JointCore preserves full‑memory behavior while reducing model queries and cost‑aware recovery rates compared to singleton deletion.

By BHVSP Subrahmanyam, Neeraj Choudhary
arXiv AI
Oct 16

MemCut: Every Secret Leaves a Trail in the Long-Term Memory of LLM Agents

MemCut introduces a benchmark to test user-requested forgetting in large language model agents, featuring 456 hand-designed secrets embedded in long-horizon conversations with fully annotated evidence trails. The benchmark defines two recovery metrics—native and residual—to assess how well secrets can be retrieved after deletion. Experiments across five memory designs and four LLMs show that deletion reduces native recovery more than residual recovery, highlighting candidate coverage as a key bottleneck.

By Cheng Zhang, Xuanning Cao, Zhicheng Zheng, Hui Xiong