Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Hierarchical Memory for High-Efficiency Long-Term Reasoning in LLM Agents

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Organizing an LLM agent's memory into four semantic levels improves answer accuracy and cuts retrieval cost compared with flat vector search.

desk verdict H-MEM is a credible memory system with real latency gains, but it overclaims consistency and skips the recall analysis that its retrieval design demands. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22925 v1 pith:V5T2IRJM submitted 2025-07-23 cs.CL cs.AI

Haoran Sun , Shaoning Zeng This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords long-termmemoryLLMagentshierarchicalpositionalindexretrievalmemory-augmentedreasoninglong-contextquestionansweringupdateLoCoMobenchmark
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to show that an LLM agent's long-term memory can be organized as a four-level hierarchy—domain, category, memory trace, and episode—so that retrieving a relevant past interaction becomes a step-by-step routing problem instead of a similarity search over every stored memory. The central claim is that this hierarchical design beats five existing memory mechanisms on all five question-answering task types of the LoCoMo long-term dialogue benchmark, with the largest gains on multi-hop and adversarial questions. It further claims that the routing scheme cuts retrieval cost from linear in all stored episodes to a sum that depends only on the number of top-level domains plus a small constant number of child lookups per level, keeping inference latency below 100 milliseconds even as memory accumulates. If correct, the paper offers a practical way to give small deployed models long-horizon dialogue memory without exhaustive search.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the four-level memory hierarchy with positional index encoding: each memory entry is a concatenation of a dense semantic vector, its own index, and the indices of its child memories in the next layer. The first three layers act as progressively refined directories, and the bottom layer holds episode text plus user profile. This encoding lets retrieval traverse the tree by pointer following after a single top-layer similarity computation, so exhaustive similarity over all episodes is never needed. The paper formalizes the traversal as recursive top-k retrieval, where at each level the selected parents contribute their top-k children by similarity to the query.

What would settle it

Run H-MEM with ground-truth domain and category labels assigned by humans instead of by the extraction model, and measure episode-level recall against a flat exhaustive top-k search; if the oracle-labeled hierarchy does not recover at least the episodes flat search finds relevant, then early pruning, not label quality, is what limits retrieval.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

H-MEM stores each interaction in four semantic layers, from abstract domain down to concrete episode, and appends to every memory vector a discrete positional index pointing to its related sub-memories in the layer below. Retrieval starts with one similarity computation at the top layer, selects the top-k domains, follows the encoded pointers to the next layer, and repeats until it reaches the episode-level text that is fed into the answer-generating model. The paper reports that this pointer-routed traversal outperforms five baseline memory systems across six language models of different sizes on the LoCoMo benchmark, with average F1 gains of about 15 points and BLEU-1 gains of about 13 points, and that the largest advantages appear in multi-hop and adversarial questions. It also reports an ablation showing that removing either the hierarchy or the pointer retrieval degrades accuracy, and efficiency measurements showing retrieval time stays below 100 ms while a flat vector-memory baseline grows past 400 ms.

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the LLM that labels memories putting each relevant conversation under a domain and category that will be selected in the top few branches at every level; if the labels are noisy or the right branch is pruned, the relevant episode is never retrieved.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Memory retrieval cost scales with the number of high-level domains plus a constant number of child lookups per level, rather than with every stored episode, so cost grows slowly as dialogue history accumulates.
  • The largest accuracy gains are on multi-hop and adversarial QA, suggesting the hierarchy helps when an answer requires combining distant or deliberately misleading information.
  • Smaller 1.5B-parameter models benefit substantially, indicating the method is usable in resource-constrained deployments rather than only with large models.
  • Ablation evidence implies that the hierarchy and the pointer-routed retrieval reinforce each other: removing either one lowers long-term QA performance.
  • Because episode-level text is preserved alongside vectors, the final prompt can carry exact wording from past interactions, which supports both accuracy and interpretability.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper, the same pointer-routing idea could be applied to other structured memory formats, such as graphs or tool-use logs, by treating each node's outgoing edges as the positional indices that gate which neighbors are scored.
  • A testable extension would be to compare H-MEM against a flat top-k retrieval with the same LLM-extracted episode text: if the hierarchy's labels are noisy, some relevant episodes may be pruned early, so an oracle-label or recall-at-K experiment would separate the value of organization from the value of the extractor.
  • The paper's complexity analysis assumes a balanced tree with uniform fan-out; in practice, fan-out and depth per domain will vary, so the reported cost bound is an upper estimate only under that assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes H-MEM, a four-level hierarchical memory architecture for LLM agents in which memory is organized into Domain, Category, Memory Trace, and Episode layers, with position-index pointers connecting levels and a top-down, top-k retrieval procedure. The authors evaluate H-MEM on the LoCoMo dataset across five question-answering task types and six base LLMs, comparing against LoCoMo, ReadAgent, MemoryBank, MemGPT, and A-MEM using F1 and BLEU-1. They claim consistent superiority over all baselines, a large retrieval-complexity reduction from O(a·10^6·D) to O((a+300k)D), and lower latency than MemoryBank in an efficiency experiment. The central empirical claim is, however, contradicted by the paper's own Table 1 in at least one reported configuration, and the retrieval mechanism is not accompanied by any recall, oracle, or extraction-accuracy analysis.

Significance. If the hierarchical-retrieval design were rigorously validated, the work would be of practical interest: a memory system that prunes retrieval to a small fraction of stored episodes while preserving answer accuracy could extend the effective context of LLM agents and reduce inference cost. The reported speedups are suggestive, but the paper does not establish the core claim because the headline 'consistently outperforms' statement fails on its own data, the recursive top-k search lacks a recall analysis, and the hyperparameters (L and k) appear to be selected on the same benchmark used for final evaluation. The contribution is therefore not yet at the level claimed, though the underlying idea is plausible and the shortcomings are addressable with additional experiments.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Table 1] The abstract and §4.2 state that H-MEM 'consistently outperforms five baseline methods' and that it 'consistently outperforms all baselines' on Open-Domain tasks. Table 1 contradicts this: for DeepSeek-R1 7B on Open Domain, H-MEM achieves F1=42.34, while MemoryGPT achieves 53.24 and LoCoMo achieves 47.24. The sentence in §4.2 claiming consistent Open-Domain superiority is therefore false. Please replace the 'consistent' claims with a precise summary of per-cell wins/losses across all model/task combinations, and report averages with confidence intervals or paired significance tests.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (1)] The recursive retrieval definition M_k^l = union over x in M_k^(l-1) of TopK_{y in Child(x)}(sim(q,y)) makes a hard pruning commitment: any relevant episode whose parent or grandparent is not among the top-k at a higher level is never retrieved. The hierarchy itself is built by an LLM from a single prompt (§3.1) with no reported extraction accuracy for the domain/category labels. The paper provides no recall-vs-k curve, no oracle comparison with flat retrieval, and no error analysis of the extraction model. Such an analysis is load-bearing because a pruned index cannot retrieve more true positives than a full scan; the reported F1 gains over flat-retrieval baselines would need to come from noise reduction, which is plausible but unproven. Please add recall-at-k versus flat retrieval, an oracle upper bound, and extraction-accuracy statistics.
  3. [§4.1 and §3.2] The number of hierarchy levels L=4 and the retrieval width k=10 are described as chosen 'after calculating and experimenting' and then used for the main LoCoMo results. There is no separate validation/test split, no sensitivity analysis over L and k, and no discussion of how the chosen values generalize. Because the accuracy-efficiency trade-off of H-MEM hinges directly on these two hyperparameters, reporting results on the same benchmark used for hyperparameter selection risks selection bias. Please provide a sweep over L and k on a held-out portion of LoCoMo (or another long-dialogue dataset) and report the final test results only for the configuration selected on validation.
  4. [§3.2, complexity analysis] The complexity claim O((a+k·300)D) versus O(a·10^6·D) assumes an idealized uniform tree with exactly 100 children at each internal node and exactly 100 episodes per trace. In practice the tree shape is data-dependent, the fan-out is not guaranteed to be 100, and the worst case degenerates to flat search. Moreover, the analysis omits the cost of building the hierarchy (the LLM extraction step) and the cost of encoding queries. The complexity comparison should be presented as an idealized calculation under the stated assumptions, not as a general bound, and should be accompanied by measured retrieval time and memory-traversal statistics on real LoCoMo trees.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2] The text says 'retrieves the top 10 most relevant episodes' after defining a generic top-k recursion; since k=10 is used in the experiments, please replace 'top 10' with 'top-k' or explicitly state that k=10 throughout.
  2. [Table 1 caption] The caption states that the best performance in each category is highlighted in bold, but the rendered table contains no bold entries and instead relies on shading for H-MEM. Please make the visual encoding consistent with the caption.
  3. [§4.1 and Table 1] Model names are inconsistent: the text mentions 'Qwen-1.5B/3B' and 'LLaMA 3.2-1B/3B', while the table uses 'Qwen2.5 1.5b/3b' and 'Llama3.2 1.5b/3b'. Also, 'DeepSeek-R1-8B' is used for memory extraction but is not listed among the base models. Please standardize naming and clarify which model is used for extraction.
  4. [References] Several references are duplicated (Huang et al. 2024a/2024b and Zhang et al. 2024a/2024b appear to be the same arXiv papers), and the paper would benefit from citing the official LoCoMo paper in the experimental setup rather than only in the baselines list.
  5. [Figure 4] The text claims that the baseline calculation amount shows 'almost exponential growth,' but Figure 4 plots only one point per task type and no curve is shown in the manuscript text. Please plot the full per-task accumulation trajectory or soften the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: H-MEM is an empirical system evaluated against external baselines, and its complexity bound follows from explicit structural assumptions rather than from fitted constants or self-citations.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical: retrieval accuracy is measured on LoCoMo against five external baselines (Table 1), and efficiency is compared directly with MemoryBank (Table 2). The recursive retrieval equation M_k^l = union over x in M_k^(l-1) of TopK_{y in Child(x)}(sim(q,y)) is a definition of the algorithm, not a derivation that collapses into its own inputs. The complexity claim O((a+300k)D) follows from the explicitly stated fanout assumption (100 children per node) and the top-k traversal; it is an arithmetic consequence of the model structure, not a fitted result renamed as a prediction. The only tuning-related concern is that the hierarchy depth L and width k were selected after experiments on the same benchmark ('After calculating and experimenting with different L values, we finally chose the optimal 4-layer'), which is a methodological issue of selection on the test set, not circularity. There is no self-citation, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The ablation study shows degradation when components are removed, consistent with the components doing causal work rather than with an identity between assumptions and conclusions. No circular step can be exhibited with the required specificity, so the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two unvalidated premises: the LLM can build a reliable semantic hierarchy, and top-k pruning preserves recall. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are the hierarchy depth L and retrieval width k, both tuned on the evaluation benchmark. The memory-weight update from user feedback is described but not quantified as a fitted parameter.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of hierarchy levels L = 4 (optimal after experiments)
    Sec 3.2: 'After calculating and experimenting with different L values, we finally chose the optimal 4-layer'. Tuned on the LoCoMo benchmark and then reported on the same benchmark, so the choice is data-fitted and affects both accuracy and efficiency.
  • Top-k retrieval budget k = 10
    Sec 4.1: 'retrieve the top-k memories with k = 10' and the final layer selects 'top 10 most relevant episodes'. No sensitivity analysis or held-out selection is reported, and k appears directly in the complexity formula O((a+300k)D).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A four-level LLM-extracted semantic hierarchy (domain, category, trace, episode) can be reliably constructed for any dialogue and provides a valid index for retrieval.
    Sec 3.1: the extraction model assigns each interaction to the hierarchy; no consistency or oracle evaluation is provided, and the entire retrieval path depends on correct routing.
  • domain assumption Top-k selection at each hierarchy level preserves recall of relevant episodes.
    Sec 3.2, Eq. (1): recursive retrieval only explores children of selected top-k parents, so a relevant episode whose parent is outside the top-k is never retrieved. This recall assumption is unvalidated.
  • domain assumption FAISS similarity computed on BERT semantic vectors gives a meaningful relevance ranking at coarse abstraction levels.
    Sec 3.2 and Sec 4.1: domain and category summaries are encoded with BERT; if these coarse vectors do not rank correctly for routing, retrieval fails. No per-level recall or ranking metrics are reported.
  • domain assumption F1 and BLEU-1 on LoCoMo are adequate measures of long-term reasoning quality.
    Sec 4.1: the paper relies on token-overlap metrics, which is common practice in the field but does not directly measure reasoning correctness.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical Memory for High-Efficiency Long-Term Reasoning in LLM Agents." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V5T2IRJM

@misc{pith2026250722925,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical Memory for High-Efficiency Long-Term Reasoning in LLM Agents},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V5T2IRJM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22925}
}
read the original abstract

Long-term memory is one of the key factors influencing the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Model Agents (LLM Agents). Incorporating a memory mechanism that effectively integrates past interactions can significantly enhance decision-making and contextual coherence of LLM Agents. While recent works have made progress in memory storage and retrieval, such as encoding memory into dense vectors for similarity-based search or organizing knowledge in the form of graph, these approaches often fall short in structured memory organization and efficient retrieval. To address these limitations, we propose a Hierarchical Memory (H-MEM) architecture for LLM Agents that organizes and updates memory in a multi-level fashion based on the degree of semantic abstraction. Each memory vector is embedded with a positional index encoding pointing to its semantically related sub-memories in the next layer. During the reasoning phase, an index-based routing mechanism enables efficient, layer-by-layer retrieval without performing exhaustive similarity computations. We evaluate our method on five task settings from the LoCoMo dataset. Experimental results show that our approach consistently outperforms five baseline methods, demonstrating its effectiveness in long-term dialogue scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22925 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Memory Architecture Comparison. The above is the traditional memory mechanism, which make query to calculate the similarity with all stored specific memories and selects the top-k related memories (Zhong et al., 2024). The following is H-MEM, which uses hierarchical memory and position index to search layer by layer and can effectively remove the influence of irrelevant memories on calculation. memory mechanism is d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. H-MEM architecture. (a) shows the hierarchical memory structure of H-MEM, divided into four memory layers: Domain Layer, Category Layer, Memory Trace Layer, and Episode Layer. (b) shows the specific memory extraction workflow of H-MEM. After encoding the questions into semantic vectors, perform similarity calculation with H-MEM memory, select the most relevant top-k related memories and user profile, attach correspo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Memory Retrieval Calculation Comparison. The above is the traditional memory retrieval method (Zhong et al., 2024), which make query to calculate the similarity with all stored specific memories and selects the top-k related memo￾ries. The following is H-MEM, which uses position index to search layer by layer. top-k most relevant domains from the a candidates. For each selected domain, it then retrieves the top-k mo… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation study result. In this figure, H represents the hierarchical memory storage of H-MEM, and R is the position index retrieval in H-MEM. we conducted comparative experiments against five mainstream baseline methods across five types of long-term dialogue question-…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Hierarchical Graph Memory for LLM Agents with Path-level Localization and Rewrite

    cs.AI 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HiGram is a hierarchical graph memory with path-level localization and coordinated rewriting that improves long-term QA accuracy and token efficiency for LLM agents.

  2. MemSifter: Offloading LLM Memory Retrieval via Outcome-Driven Proxy Reasoning

    cs.IR 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MemSifter trains a 4B proxy with an outcome-driven, rank-sensitive RL reward to sift LLM memory, and on eight benchmarks it matches or beats embedding, graph, and long-context baselines.

  3. Toward Efficient Agents: Memory, Tool learning, and Planning

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A survey that organizes efficiency techniques for LLM agents into memory, tool learning, and planning, and consolidates benchmarks and metrics for measuring cost-performance trade-offs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block STRING...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

  3. [3]

    DeepSeek-AI. 2025. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.12948 Deepseek-r1: Incentivizing reasoning capability in llms via reinforcement learning . Preprint, arXiv:2501.12948

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Matthijs Douze, Alexandr Guzhva, Chengqi Deng, Jeff Johnson, Gergely Szilvasy, Pierre-Emmanuel Mazaré, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, and Hervé Jégou. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.08281 The faiss library

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Jiawei Gu, Xuhui Jiang, Zhichao Shi, Hexiang Tan, Xuehao Zhai, Chengjin Xu, Wei Li, Yinghan Shen, Shengjie Ma, Honghao Liu, and 1 others. 2024. A survey on llm-as-a-judge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15594

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Kostas Hatalis, Despina Christou, Joshua Myers, Steven Jones, Keith Lambert, Adam Amos-Binks, Zohreh Dannenhauer, and Dustin Dannenhauer. 2023. Memory matters: The need to improve long-term memory in llm-agents. In Proceedings of the AAAI Symposium Series, volume 2, pages 277--280

    work page 2023

  7. [8]

    Xu Huang, Weiwen Liu, Xiaolong Chen, Xingmei Wang, Hao Wang, Defu Lian, Yasheng Wang, Ruiming Tang, and Enhong Chen. 2024 b . Understanding the planning of llm agents: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02716

    arXiv 2024

  8. [9]

    Kuang-Huei Lee, Xinyun Chen, Hiroki Furuta, John Canny, and Ian Fischer. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.09727 A human-inspired reading agent with gist memory of very long contexts . Preprint, arXiv:2402.09727

    arXiv 2024

Show all 23 references
  1. [10]

    Yuanchun Li, Hao Wen, Weijun Wang, Xiangyu Li, Yizhen Yuan, Guohong Liu, Jiacheng Liu, Wenxing Xu, Xiang Wang, Yi Sun, and 1 others. 2024. Personal llm agents: Insights and survey about the capability, efficiency and security. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05459

    2024 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Adyasha Maharana, Dong-Ho Lee, Sergey Tulyakov, Mohit Bansal, Francesco Barbieri, and Yuwei Fang. 2024. Evaluating very long-term conversational memory of llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17753

    2024 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Charles Packer, Vivian Fang, Shishir\_G Patil, Kevin Lin, Sarah Wooders, and Joseph\_E Gonzalez. 2023. Memgpt: Towards llms as operating systems

    2023

  4. [13]

    Rana Salama, Jason Cai, Michelle Yuan, Anna Currey, Monica Sunkara, Yi Zhang, and Yassine Benajiba. 2025. Meminsight: Autonomous memory augmentation for llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21760

    2025 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Zhuocheng Shen. 2024. Llm with tools: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.18807

    2024 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, Aurelien Rodriguez, Armand Joulin, Edouard Grave, and Guillaume Lample. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.13971 Llama:...

    2023 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Bing Wang, Xinnian Liang, Jian Yang, Hui Huang, Shuangzhi Wu, Peihao Wu, Lu Lu, Zejun Ma, and Zhoujun Li. 2023. Enhancing large language model with self-controlled memory framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13343

    2023 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Junchao Wu, Shu Yang, Runzhe Zhan, Yulin Yuan, Lidia Sam Chao, and Derek Fai Wong. 2025. A survey on llm-generated text detection: Necessity, methods, and future directions. Computational Linguistics, pages 1--66

    2025

  9. [18]

    Wujiang Xu, Zujie Liang, Kai Mei, Hang Gao, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2025. A-mem: Agentic memory for llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12110

    2025 arXiv

  10. [19]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Zhou, Chengpeng Li, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Guanting Dong, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jialong Tang, Jialin Wang, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Ma, and 40 others. 2024 a . Qwen2 technical r...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [20]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, Huan Lin, Jian Yang, Jianhong Tu, Jianwei Zhang, Jianxin Yang, Jiaxi Yang, Jingren Zhou, Junyang Lin, Kai Dang, and 22 others. 2024 b . Qwen2.5 technical r...

    2024 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Yifan Yao, Jinhao Duan, Kaidi Xu, Yuanfang Cai, Zhibo Sun, and Yue Zhang. 2024. A survey on large language model (llm) security and privacy: The good, the bad, and the ugly. High-Confidence Computing, page 100211

    2024

  13. [22]

    Zihao Yi, Jiarui Ouyang, Yuwen Liu, Tianhao Liao, Zhe Xu, and Ying Shen. 2024. A survey on recent advances in llm-based multi-turn dialogue systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18013

    2024 arXiv

  14. [24]

    Zeyu Zhang, Xiaohe Bo, Chen Ma, Rui Li, Xu Chen, Quanyu Dai, Jieming Zhu, Zhenhua Dong, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2024 b . A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model based agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13501

    2024 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Wanjun Zhong, Lianghong Guo, Qiqi Gao, He Ye, and Yanlin Wang. 2024. Memorybank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 19724--19731

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.