The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
INMS: Memory Sharing for Large Language Model based Agents
Open accessAbstract
While Large Language Model (LLM) based agents excel at complex tasks, their performance in open-ended scenarios is often constrained by isolated operation and reliance on static databases, missing the dynamic knowledge exchange of human dialogue. To bridge this gap, we propose the INteractive Memory Sharing (INMS) framework, an asynchronous interaction paradigm for multi-agent systems. By integrating real-time memory filtering, storage, and retrieval, INMS establishes a shared conversational memory pool. This enables continuous, dialogue-like memory sharing among agents, promoting collective self-enhancement and dynamically refining the retrieval mediator based on interaction history. Extensive experiments across three datasets demonstrate that INMS improves agent performance by effectively modeling multi-agent interaction and collective knowledge sharing.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In practice, researchers and practitioners often conflate agent memory with related constructs such as LLM memory (Wu et al., 2025g), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) (Gao et al., 2024), and context engineering (Mei et al., 2025).”
From Memory in the Age of AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2024
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Their experiments show that shared memory pools not only increase diversity in responses but also enhance capabilities of agents in complex reasoning tasks.”
From Memory Fabric for Conversational AI Agents: Enabling Shared and Persistent Memory Across Users (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Implementing effective memory management strategies such as dynamic allocation, pruning of outdated or low-relevance memories, and indexing for fast retrieval is essential to prevent information overload and ensure that system responses remain accurate and contextually relevant [27,29].”
From Memory Fabric for Conversational AI Agents: Enabling Shared and Persistent Memory Across Users (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Most of these frameworks either maintain no persistent memory or assume a fully shared memory store; Memory Sharing [4] begins to address this gap by letting agents asynchronously contribute to, and retrieve from, a single common memory pool, but it still overlooks user-level privacy or access constraints.”
From Collaborative Memory: Multi-User Memory Sharing in LLM Agents with Dynamic Access Control (2025) · cites this paper as [4]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Gao et al. (2024) also explored the idea of explicit memory sharing by integrating multiple agents using mechanisms for storing, filtering, and retrieving memories [27].”
From Memory Fabric for Conversational AI Agents: Enabling Shared and Persistent Memory Across Users (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“MS focuses on real-time memory sharing by storing Prompt-Answer (PA) pairs in a shared memory pool, with an autonomous retriever ensuring relevant memories enhance response quality and reduce dependence on external databases.”
From The AI Hippocampus: How Far are We From Human Memory? (2026) · cites this paper as Gao & Zhang, 2024
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“There are techniques such as approximate nearest neighbor search, embedding compression, and hierarchical memory organization that can mitigate performance bottlenecks while preserving retrieval accuracy [27].”
From Memory Fabric for Conversational AI Agents: Enabling Shared and Persistent Memory Across Users (2025) · cites this paper as [27]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- Toufique Ahmed and Premkumar Devanbu. 2022. Few-shot training llms for project-specific code- summarization. In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pages 1-5.
- Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.
- Luyu Gao, Aman Madaan, Shuyan Zhou, Uri Alon, Pengfei Liu, Yiming Yang, Jamie Callan, and Gra- ham Neubig. 2023. Pal: Program-aided language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10764-10799.
- PMLR.
- Joy He-Yueya, Gabriel Poesia, Rose E Wang, and Noah D Goodman. 2023. Solving math word prob- lems by combining language models with symbolic solvers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.09102. · arXiv
- Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi- Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. 2023. Atlas: Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24(251):1-43.
- Yoav Levine, Noam Wies, Daniel Jannai, Dan Navon, Yedid Hoshen, and Amnon Shashua. 2021. The inductive bias of in-context learning: Rethink- ing pretraining example design. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.04541. · arXiv
- Jiachang Liu, Dinghan Shen, Yizhe Zhang, William B Dolan, Lawrence Carin, and Weizhu Chen. 2022. What makes good in-context examples for gpt-3? In Proceedings of Deep Learning Inside Out (Dee- LIO 2022): The 3rd Workshop on Knowledge Extrac- tion and Integration for Deep Learning Architectures, pages 100-114.
- Lei Liu, Xiaoyan Yang, Yue Shen, Binbin Hu, Zhiqiang Zhang, Jinjie Gu, and Guannan Zhang. 2023a. Think-in-memory: Recalling and post-thinking en- able llms with long-term memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08719. · arXiv
- Pengfei Liu, Weizhe Yuan, Jinlan Fu, Zhengbao Jiang, Hiroaki Hayashi, and Graham Neubig. 2023b. Pre- train, prompt, and predict: A systematic survey of prompting methods in natural language processing. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(9):1-35.
- Xiao Liu, Hao Yu, Hanchen Zhang, Yifan Xu, Xuanyu Lei, Hanyu Lai, Yu Gu, Hangliang Ding, Kaiwen Men, Kejuan Yang, et al. 2023c. Agentbench: Eval- uating llms as agents. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Junru Lu, Siyu An, Mingbao Lin, Gabriele Pergola, Yu- lan He, Di Yin, Xing Sun, and Yunsheng Wu. 2023. Memochat: Tuning llms to use memos for consis- tent long-range open-domain conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08239. · arXiv
- Man Luo, Xin Xu, Zhuyun Dai, Panupong Pasu- pat, Mehran Kazemi, Chitta Baral, Vaiva Im- brasaite, and Vincent Y Zhao. 2023. Dr. icl: Demonstration-retrieved in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14128. · arXiv
- Charles Packer, Vivian Fang, Shishir G Patil, Kevin Lin, Sarah Wooders, and Joseph E Gonzalez. 2023. Memgpt: Towards llms as operating systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08560. · arXiv
- Joon Sung Park, Joseph O'Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Mered- ith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bern- stein. 2023. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. In Proceedings of the 36th An- nual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 1-22.
- Nils Reimers and Iryna Gurevych. 2019. Sentence-bert: Sentence embeddings using siamese bert-networks. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), pages 3982-3992.
- Weijia Shi, Sewon Min, Michihiro Yasunaga, Min- joon Seo, Rich James, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettle- moyer, and Wen-tau Yih. 2023. Replug: Retrieval- augmented black-box language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12652. · arXiv
- Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik R Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023. Re- flexion: language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
- Guanzhi Wang, Yuqi Xie, Yunfan Jiang, Ajay Man- dlekar, Chaowei Xiao, Yuke Zhu, Linxi Fan, and Anima Anandkumar. 2023. Voyager: An open-ended embodied agent with large language models. In NeurIPS 2023 Foundation Models for Decision Mak- ing Workshop.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toward large reasoning models: A survey of reinforced reasoning with large language models
Xu, F., Hao, Q., Shao, C., Zong, Z., Li, Y., Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Wang, J., Lan, X., Gong, J., et al. (2025) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2025.101370 · Cited by 533
Self-citationWei, T., Li, T.-W., Liu, Z., Ning, X., Yang, Z., Zou, J., Zeng, Z., Qiu, R., Lin, X., Fu, D., et al. (2026) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.12538 · Cited by 97
Self-citationAgentic AI: The age of reasoning—A review
Nisa, U., Shirazi, M., Saip, M. A., & Pozi, M. S. M. (2025) · Journal of Automation and Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.jai.2025.08.003 · Cited by 84
MAGPIE: A benchmark for Multi-AGent contextual PrIvacy EvaluationPreprint
Juneja, G., Pasupulati, J. N. S., Albalak, A., Hua, W., & Wang, W. Y. (2025) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.15186 · Cited by 31
Richelieu: Self-Evolving LLM-Based Agents for AI Diplomacy
Guan, Z., Kong, X., Zhong, F., & Wang, Y. (2024) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/079017-3925 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Gao, H., & Zhang, Y.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- ORCID
- Gao, Hang
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2404.09982
- OpenAlex
- W4394868298
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Keywords
- LLM agents, multi-agent systems, memory sharing, asynchronous interaction, memory retrieval
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: INMS: Memory Sharing for Large Language Model based Agents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2404.09982
- The paper
- Gao, H., & Zhang, Y. (2024). INMS: Memory Sharing for Large Language Model based Agents. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2404.09982
