Cited by 2Speech and dialogue systemsAI in Service InteractionsIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning

ES-MemEval: Benchmarking Conversational Agents on Personalized Long-Term Emotional Support

Open access
Chen, Tiantian, Lu, Jiaqi, Shen, Ying, Zhang, Lin·2026·Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong potential as conversational agents. Yet, their effectiveness remains limited by deficiencies in robust long-term memory, particularly in complex, long-term web-based services such as online emotional support. However, existing long-term dialogue benchmarks primarily focus on static and explicit fact retrieval, failing to evaluate agents in critical scenarios where user information is dispersed, implicit, and continuously evolving. To address this gap, we introduce ES-MemEval, a comprehensive benchmark that systematically evaluates five core memory capabilities: information extraction, temporal reasoning, conflict detection, abstention, and user modeling, in long-term emotional support settings, covering question answering, summarization, and dialogue generation tasks. To support the benchmark, we also propose EvoEmo, a multi-session dataset for personalized long-term emotional support that captures fragmented, implicit user disclosures and evolving user states. Extensive experiments on open-source long-context, commercial, and retrieval-augmented (RAG) LLMs show that explicit long-term memory is essential for reducing hallucinations and enabling effective personalization. At the same time, RAG improves factual consistency but struggles with temporal dynamics and evolving user states. These findings highlight both the potential and limitations of current paradigms and motivate more robust integration of memory and retrieval for long-term personalized dialogue systems.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3774904.3792143

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • LongMemEval and ES-MemEval note that LoCoMo does not adequately evaluate reasoning over updated user states and lacks conflict detection, abstention behavior, and explicit user modeling.

    “LongMemEval and ES-MemEval note that LoCoMo does not adequately evaluate reasoning over updated user states and lacks conflict detection, abstention behavior, and explicit user modeling [5], [20].”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, T., Lu, J., Shen, Y., & Zhang, L.
Affiliations
Tongji University (CN)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026
Publisher
ACM
Published
2026-04-12
Pages
5810-5821
OpenAlex
W7127334606
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • New Generation Artificial Intelligence-National Science and Technology Major Project (2025ZD0123701)
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62476202, 62272343)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Keywords
long-term memory, chatbots, emotional support, benchmarking, retrieval-augmented generation, hallucinations, user modeling, temporal reasoning, conflict detection, information extraction, long-context LLMs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review