CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 19Speech and dialogue systemsAI in Service InteractionsTopic Modeling

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On Memory Construction and Retrieval for Personalized Conversational Agents

Open access
Pan, Zhuoshi, Wu, Qianhui, Jiang, Huiqiang, Luo, Xufang, Cheng, Hao, Li, Dongsheng, Yang, Yuqing, Lin, Chin-Yew, Zhao, H. Vicky, Qiu, Lili, Gao, Jianfeng·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2502.05589arXiv 2502.05589
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

To deliver coherent and personalized experiences in long-term conversations, existing approaches typically perform retrieval augmented response generation by constructing memory banks from conversation history at either the turn-level, session-level, or through summarization techniques.In this paper, we present two key findings: (1) The granularity of memory unit matters: turn-level, session-level, and summarization-based methods each exhibit limitations in both memory retrieval accuracy and the semantic quality of the retrieved content. (2) Prompt compression methods, such as LLMLingua-2, can effectively serve as a denoising mechanism, enhancing memory retrieval accuracy across different granularities. Building on these insights, we propose SeCom, a method that constructs the memory bank at segment level by introducing a conversation segmentation model that partitions long-term conversations into topically coherent segments, while applying compression based denoising on memory units to enhance memory retrieval. Experimental results show that SeCom exhibits a significant performance advantage over baselines on long-term conversation benchmarks LOCOMO and Long-MT-Bench+. Additionally, the proposed conversation segmentation method demonstrates superior performance on dialogue segmentation datasets such as DialSeg711, TIAGE, and SuperDialSeg.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2502.05589

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Research has begun to define memory boundaries based on cognitive psychology, organizing information through syntactic tuples or segmenting events based on Bayesian surprise and paragraph structures, thereby matching human-like cognitive segmentation.

    “Furthermore, research has begun to define memory boundaries based on cognitive psychology, organizing information through syntactic tuples (Chatterjee and Agarwal, 2025) or segmenting events based on Bayesian surprise and paragraph structures (Fountas et al., 2025; Pan et al., 2025) , thereby matching human-like cognitive segmentation.”

    From Memory in the Age of AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Pan et al., 2025

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Three concurrent systems published in 2025 report results on LongMemEval and constitute the most direct comparative baselines for our work.

    “Three concurrent systems published in 2025 report results on LongMemEval and constitute the most direct comparative baselines for our work.”

    From From Organizational Knowledge to AI Agent Memory: Empirical Validation of the SECI Model on the LongMemEval Benchmark (2026) · cites this paper as Pan et al. 2025

    The cited paper is a 2025 conversational-memory system, supporting its identification as a contemporary system. But its Datasets & Evaluation Metrics section (page unavailable) names LOCOMO and Long-MT-Bench+, and the Main Results section reports comparisons on those benchmarks; our copy does not show LongMemEval results or establish that it is one of three direct comparative baselines for the citing work. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Existing approaches employ unstructured formats such as summarization or compression, but struggle with temporal modeling and content overlap, leading to information loss and fragmented representations.

    “Existing approaches employ unstructured formats such as summarization (Zhong et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2025) or compression (Pan et al., 2025; Chen et al., 2025), but struggle with temporal modeling and content overlap, leading to information loss and fragmented representations.”

    From Pre-Storage Reasoning for Episodic Memory: Shifting Inference Burden to Memory for Personalized Dialogue (2025) · cites this paper as Pan et al., 2025

    Section 2.3 identifies compression as a method the paper uses for memory construction, and the Introduction describes fragmented turn-level retrieval; the Main Results also suggest that summarization can lose crucial information. The paper does not establish that its compression method struggles with temporal modeling or content overlap. It instead reports improved retrieval from compression-based denoising. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The clustering step reduces redundancy in memory representations to minimize noise during reasoning.

    “This clustering step serves two critical purposes: it reduces redundancy in memory representations to minimize noise during reasoning (Pan et al., 2025), and it prevents combinatorial explosion by limiting the number of cross-session comparisons required during relationship analysis.”

    From Pre-Storage Reasoning for Episodic Memory: Shifting Inference Burden to Memory for Personalized Dialogue (2025) · cites this paper as Pan et al., 2025

    Section 2.3, “Compression Based Memory Denoising” (page unavailable), says the authors remove redundancy from memory units to reduce noise in retrieval. The cited paper attributes that effect to prompt compression, not to a clustering step, and discusses retrieval rather than noise during reasoning. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Memory compression techniques summarize semantically or temporally adjacent segments but often fail to link interleaved, persistent goal contexts across nonadjacent segments.

    “Memory compression techniques (Sarthi et al., 2024; Pan et al., 2025) summarize semantically or temporally adjacent segments but often fail to link interleaved, persistent goal contexts across nonadjacent segments (Figure 1(C)), complicating state tracing (Figure 1(A)) and information synthesis (Figure 1(D)).”

    From Grounding Agent Memory in Contextual Intent (2026) · cites this paper as Pan et al., 2025

    The Main Results section says summary-based methods can lose crucial information, and the Figure 16 case study describes information lost during summarization. The discussion accompanying Figure 1 also says goal-related information can be dispersed across interactions, but attributes that retrieval problem to turn-level memory. The paper does not establish that compression techniques specifically fail to link persistent goals across nonadjacent, interleaved segments; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. Nick Alonso, Tomás Figliolia, Anthony Ndirango, and Beren Millidge. Toward conversational agents with context and time sensitive long-term memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00057, 2024. · arXiv
  2. Giambattista Amati. BM25, pp. 257-260. Springer US, Boston, MA, 2009. ISBN 978-0-387-39940- 9. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-39940-9 921. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387 -39940-9_921. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Alexis Conneau, Kartikay Khandelwal, Naman Goyal, Vishrav Chaudhary, Guillaume Wenzek, Francisco Guzmán, Edouard Grave, Myle Ott, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. Un- supervised cross-lingual representation learning at scale. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 8440-8451, Online, 2020. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.747. URL https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.747. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Emily Dinan, Stephen Roller, Kurt Shuster, Angela Fan, Michael Auli, and Jason Weston. Wizard of wikipedia: Knowledge-powered conversational agents. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2019.
  5. André V Duarte, João Marques, Miguel Grac ¸a, Miguel Freire, Lei Li, and Arlindo L Oliveira. Lumberchunker: Long-form narrative document segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.17526, 2024. · arXiv
  6. Song Feng, Hui Wan, Chulaka Gunasekara, Siva Patel, Sachindra Joshi, and Luis Lastras. doc2dial: A goal-oriented document-grounded dialogue dataset. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 8118-8128, 2020.
  7. Haoyu Gao, Rui Wang, Ting-En Lin, Yuchuan Wu, Min Yang, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. Unsu- pervised dialogue topic segmentation with topic-aware utterance representation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.02747, 2023. · arXiv
  8. David Grangier, Alessandro Vinciarelli, and Hervé Bourlard. Information retrieval on noisy text. In IDIAP COMMUNICATION, 2003. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corp usID:3249973.
  9. Pegah Jandaghi, XiangHai Sheng, Xinyi Bai, Jay Pujara, and Hakim Sidahmed. Faithful persona-based conversational dataset generation with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10007, 2023. · arXiv
  10. Kalervo Järvelin and Jaana Kekäläinen. Cumulated gain-based evaluation of ir techniques. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 20(4):422-446, 2002.
  11. Albert Q. Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Arthur Mensch, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Florian Bressand, Gianna Lengyel, Guillaume Lample, Lucile Saulnier, Lélio Renard Lavaud, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Pierre Stock, Teven Le Scao, Thibaut Lavril, Thomas Wang, Timothée Lacroix, and William El Sayed. Mistral 7b, 2023a. URL https://arxiv.or g/abs/2310.06825.
  12. Junfeng Jiang, Chengzhang Dong, Sadao Kurohashi, and Akiko Aizawa. Superdialseg: A large-scale dataset for supervised dialogue segmentation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 4086-4101, 2023d.
  13. Jeff Johnson, Matthijs Douze, and Hervé Jégou. Billion-scale similarity search with gpus. IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 7(3):535-547, 2019.
  14. Vladimir Karpukhin, Barlas Oguz, Sewon Min, Patrick Lewis, Ledell Wu, Sergey Edunov, Danqi Chen, and Wen-tau Yih. Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 6769-6781, 2020.
  15. Seo Hyun Kim, Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Taeyoon Kwon, Namyoung Kim, Keummin Ka, SeongHyeon Bae, Yohan Jo, Seung-won Hwang, Dongha Lee, and Jinyoung Yeo. Theanine: Revisiting memory management in long-term conversations with timeline-augmented response generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10996, 2024. · arXiv
  16. Sungdong Kim, Sanghwan Bae, Jamin Shin, Soyoung Kang, Donghyun Kwak, Kang Yoo, and Minjoon Seo. Aligning large language models through synthetic feedback. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 13677-13700, 2023.
  17. Gibbeum Lee, Volker Hartmann, Jongho Park, Dimitris Papailiopoulos, and Kangwook Lee. Prompted llms as chatbot modules for long open-domain conversation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pp. 4536-4554, 2023.
  18. Seanie Lee, Hae Beom Lee, Juho Lee, and Sung Ju Hwang. Sequential reptile: inter-task gradient alignment for multilingual learning. In Tenth International Conference on Learning Representations. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
  19. Seanie Lee, Jianpeng Chen, Joris Driesen, Alexandru Coca, and Anders Johannsen. Effective and efficient conversation retrieval for dialogue state tracking with implicit text summaries. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13043, 2024. · arXiv
  20. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented genera- tion for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33: 9459-9474, 2020.
  21. Hao Li, Chenghao Yang, An Zhang, Yang Deng, Xiang Wang, and Tat-Seng Chua. Hello again! llm-powered personalized agent for long-term dialogue. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.05925, 2024. · arXiv
  22. Xiang Lisa Li and Percy Liang. Prefix-tuning: Optimizing continuous prompts for generation. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 4582-4597, 2021.
  23. Chin-Yew Lin. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pp. 74-81, 2004.
  24. Nelson F Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:157-173, 2024.
  25. Junru Lu, Siyu An, Mingbao Lin, Gabriele Pergola, Yulan He, Di Yin, Xing Sun, and Yunsheng Wu. Memochat: Tuning llms to use memos for consistent long-range open-domain conversation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08239, 2023. · arXiv
  26. Xueguang Ma, Minghan Li, Kai Sun, Ji Xin, and Jimmy Lin. Simple and effective unsupervised redundancy elimination to compress dense vectors for passage retrieval. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 2854-2859, 2021.
  27. Adyasha Maharana, Dong-Ho Lee, Sergey Tulyakov, Mohit Bansal, Francesco Barbieri, and Yuwei Fang. Evaluating very long-term conversational memory of llm agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17753, 2024. · arXiv
  28. Kelong Mao, Zhicheng Dou, and Hongjin Qian. Curriculum contrastive context denoising for few-shot conversational dense retrieval. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 176-186, 2022.
  29. Michael McCloskey and Neal J Cohen. Catastrophic interference in connectionist networks: The sequential learning problem. In Psychology of learning and motivation, volume 24, pp. 109-165. Elsevier, 1989.
  30. Alexander Pan, Jun Shern Chan, Andy Zou, Nathaniel Li, Steven Basart, Thomas Woodside, Hanlin Zhang, Scott Emmons, and Dan Hendrycks. Do the rewards justify the means? measuring trade-offs between rewards and ethical behavior in the machiavelli benchmark. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 26837-26867. PMLR, 2023.
  31. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 311-318, 2002.
  32. Lev Pevzner and Marti A Hearst. A critique and improvement of an evaluation metric for text segmentation. Computational Linguistics, 28(1):19-36, 2002.
  33. Shauli Ravfogel, Valentina Pyatkin, Amir DN Cohen, Avshalom Manevich, and Yoav Goldberg. Retrieving texts based on abstract descriptions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.12517, 2023. · arXiv
  34. Siva Reddy, Danqi Chen, and Christopher D Manning. Coqa: A conversational question answering challenge. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 7:249-266, 2019.
  35. Matthew Renze and Erhan Guven. Self-reflection in llm agents: Effects on problem-solving perfor- mance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06682, 2024. · arXiv
  36. Claude E Shannon. Prediction and entropy of printed english. Bell system technical journal, 30(1): 50-64, 1951.
  37. Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrelevant context. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 31210-31227. PMLR, 2023.
  38. Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik R Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=vA ElhFcKW6.
  39. Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Tao Qin, Jianfeng Lu, and Tie-Yan Liu. Mpnet: Masked and permuted pre-training for language understanding. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33: 16857-16867, 2020.
  40. Tomek Strzalkowski, Jin Wang, and G Bowden Wise. Summarization-based query expansion in information retrieval. In COLING 1998 Volume 2: The 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 1998.
  41. Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Yonghui Wu, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805, 2023. · arXiv
  42. Qingyue Wang, Liang Ding, Yanan Cao, Zhiliang Tian, Shi Wang, Dacheng Tao, and Li Guo. Recursively summarizing enables long-term dialogue memory in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.15022, 2023. · arXiv
  43. Mark Wasson. Using summaries in document retrieval. In Proceedings of the ACL-02 Workshop on Automatic Summarization, pp. 27-36, Phildadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, July 2002. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.3115/1118162.1118167. URL https://aclantholo gy.org/W02-0405. · DOI
  44. Wei Wu, Zhuoshi Pan, Chao Wang, Liyi Chen, Yunchu Bai, Kun Fu, Zheng Wang, and Hui Xiong. Tokenselect: Efficient long-context inference and length extrapolation for llms via dynamic token- level kv cache selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.02886, 2024. · arXiv
  45. Huiyuan Xie, Zhenghao Liu, Chenyan Xiong, Zhiyuan Liu, and Ann Copestake. Tiage: A bench- mark for topic-shift aware dialog modeling. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pp. 1684-1690, 2021.
  46. Jing Xu, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. Beyond goldfish memory: Long-term open-domain conversation. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 5180-5197, 2022.
  47. Yi Xu, Hai Zhao, and Zhuosheng Zhang. Topic-aware multi-turn dialogue modeling. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pp. 14176-14184, 2021.
  48. Linhao Ye, Zhikai Lei, Jianghao Yin, Qin Chen, Jie Zhou, and Liang He. Boosting conversational question answering with fine-grained retrieval-augmentation and self-check. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, pp. 2301-2305, 2024.
  49. Wenhao Yu, Hongming Zhang, Xiaoman Pan, Kaixin Ma, Hongwei Wang, and Dong Yu. Chain-of-note: Enhancing robustness in retrieval-augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09210, 2023. · arXiv
  50. Ruifeng Yuan, Shichao Sun, Zili Wang, Ziqiang Cao, and Wenjie Li. Evolving large language model assistant with long-term conditional memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.17257, 2023. · arXiv
  51. Saizheng Zhang, Emily Dinan, Jack Urbanek, Arthur Szlam, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. Personalizing dialogue agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too? In Iryna Gurevych and Yusuke Miyao (eds.), Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pp. 2204-2213, Melbourne, Australia, July 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/P18-1205. URL https://aclanthology.org/P18-1205. · DOI · Paper page
  52. Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with bert. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2020.
  53. Zeyu Zhang, Xiaohe Bo, Chen Ma, Rui Li, Xu Chen, Quanyu Dai, Jieming Zhu, Zhenhua Dong, and Ji-Rong Wen. A survey on the memory mechanism of large language model based agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.13501, 2024. · arXiv
  54. Wanjun Zhong, Lianghong Guo, Qiqi Gao, He Ye, and Yanlin Wang. Memorybank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 38(17):19724-19731, Mar. 2024. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v38i17.29946. URL https: //ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/29946. [human]: Explain what's base rate fallacy and list five specific examples of ... ... (Human-Bot Dialogue Turns) ... (Topic: Base Rate Fallacy In Politics) [human]: How many integers are in the solution of the inequality |x + 5| < 10? ... (Human-Bot Dialogue Turns) ... (Topic: Number of Integers in Inequalities) [human]: How have the Alps and Rhine River influenced settlement and agriculture in Western Europe? ... (Human-Bot Dialogue Turns) ... (Topic: Alps and Rhine River Impact) · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pan, Z., Wu, Q., Jiang, H., Luo, X., Cheng, H., Li, D., Yang, Y., Lin, C.-Y., Zhao, H. V., Qiu, L., & Gao, J.
Affiliations
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2502.05589
arXiv
2502.05589
OpenAlex
W4407385160
Cited by
2
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › AI in Service Interactions
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
chatbots, memory retrieval, retrieval-augmented generation, prompt compression, noise reduction, personalized dialogue, Secom

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