選擇何時能取代抽取？一項以具型別決策模型測試智能體記憶的預先註冊研究

Published on Sep 28

Authors:

Abstract

Does conversational memory need LLM-extracted facts, or is selecting the right raw turns enough? Published results disagree. Extraction-based systems report gains from distilled facts. Recent studies find raw history with good ranking does as well, but disagree about whether ranking matters. We ran a pre-registered study on held-out LoCoMo conversations and LongMemEval. At a tight budget on LoCoMo, raw turns selected by a single call to Jev, a typed decision model, are non-inferior to an LLM-extraction memory (one-sided 95% bound -3.0 points against a -5-point margin). Blind human grading narrows the margin but does not change the result. Raw turns cost 3,061 times less to write, and the result holds with a second answer model. Within this study, reranking's gain shrinks as the budget grows. It adds 17.4 points on LoCoMo and 9.1 on LongMemEval when three of 30 candidates are kept. At generous budgets it adds 1.5 and 1.1, and extraction systems are more accurate. This suggests why published results disagree. At matched context, Jev selects as accurately as an LLM reranker (non-inferiority bound -2.0) at a third of the latency, and more accurately than a multi-call graph traversal. Reranking lowers correct abstention. Plans, code and graded answers are released.

View arXiv page View PDF Project page GitHub 1 Add to collection

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2609.34227

Don't have the latest CLI?

curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2609.34227 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 1

ris3abh-11/engram-eval

Viewer •

Spaces citing this paper 1

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.