This work introduces InMind, a 125-task, expert-verified benchmark spanning ten life domains, with 113 tasks grounded in citable public sources, and calls this failure mode the implicit-association blind spot, and introduces a minimal diagnostic probe that keeps memory visible before the query arrives recovers most of the gap.
Abstract
Long-term memory systems store what a user says in an external store and retrieve it when a related query arrives. This interface rests on an assumption so natural that it is rarely stated: a memory that is needed will resemble the query that needs it. World knowledge breaks the assumption. A tree-nut allergy should change the answer to a macaron request through their almond-flour ingredient, yet the two texts share no cue a retriever can see. We call this failure mode the implicit-association blind spot and introduce InMind, a 125-task, expert-verified benchmark spanning ten life domains, with 113 tasks grounded in citable public sources. Its paired controls separate three explanations that existing evaluations conflate: the fact was never stored, the model lacks the bridging knowledge, or the fact was stored and never surfaced. The verdict is clean. With the decisive memory placed in context, the backbone answers 84.0 percent of indirect queries; when the same memory must be retrieved, six vector, graph, and agentic memory systems reach at most 14.4 percent, even though they recall the same facts on demand at up to 100 percent. An embedding with eight times the dimensionality raises answer-blind target recall for every system yet leaves the gap essentially intact. A minimal diagnostic probe that keeps memory visible before the query arrives recovers most of the gap, locating the failure in the query-conditioned interface itself and pointing to routing, deciding which facts must stay visible, as the open problem InMind is built to score.
RD-Forget is presented, a training-free framework that separates what an agent stores from what it uses and offers a practical way to accommodate changing facts and future questions.
TARL is introduced, a memory state update framework that maps each statement to one of five executable actions and is trained by comparing the memory states produced by alternative update operations, encouraging the model to select the operation that leads to the correct result.
Han Xiao, Hongjun Xu, Xin Zhang et al.· 0 citations
Excluding an exchange's own rows therefore provides a way to edit and audit conversation memory, while leaving a measurable difference from rebuilding it without that exchange, as well as evaluating separately for each record.
Overall, LightMem offers a context-efficiency trade-off rather than a general advantage over Naive RAG, whose value depends on the retriever and available token budget, motivating future work on retrieval, reranking, query formulation, and their interaction with raw and constructed memory representations.
Yong Zhou, Shuai Wang, B. Koopman et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
Agent memory systems compress what they store, and compression is built to drop qualifiers, so a claim's epistemic standing tends not to survive being written to memory. We ask what governs whether it does. Matched notes carry the identical claim and identical stance and differ only in where that stance sits; one model...
AI systems increasingly retrieve from records that revise themselves: issue threads, encyclopedic histories, policy logs, and long conversations. The challenge is not only finding relevant evidence, but deciding which claims remain in force, which were superseded, and when to abstain. Structured memories promise to sol...
Zhao-Yang Jiang, Zhizhong Fu, Zicheng Li et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.