CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 6AI-based Problem Solving and PlanningMulti-Agent Systems and NegotiationNatural Language Processing Techniques

Intrinsic Memory Agents: Heterogeneous Multi-Agent LLM Systems through Structured Contextual Memory

Open access
Yuen, Sizhe, Medina, Francisco Gomez, Su, Ting, Du, Yali, Sobey, Adam J.·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2508.08997arXiv 2508.08997
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Multi-agent systems built on Large Language Models (LLMs) show exceptional promise for complex collaborative problem-solving, yet they face fundamental challenges stemming from context window limitations that impair memory consistency, role adherence, and procedural integrity. This paper introduces Intrinsic Memory Agents, a novel framework that addresses these limitations through agent-specific memories that evolve intrinsically with agent outputs. Specifically, our method maintains role-aligned memory that preserves specialized perspectives while focusing on task-relevant information. Our approach utilises a generic memory template applicable to new problems without the need to hand-craft specific memory prompts. We benchmark our approach on the PDDL, FEVER, and ALFWorld datasets, comparing its performance to existing state-of-the-art multi-agentic memory approaches and showing state-of-the-art or comparable performance across all three, with the highest consistency. An additional evaluation is performed on a complex data pipeline design task, and we demonstrate that our approach produces higher quality designs across 5 metrics: scalability, reliability, usability, cost-effectiveness, and documentation, plus additional qualitative evidence of the improvements. Our findings suggest that addressing memory limitations through intrinsic approaches can improve the capabilities of multi-agent LLM systems on structured planning tasks.

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.2508.08997

Cites

Statistics

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?

  • Intrinsic Memory Agents equip agents with role-specific memory templates that preserve specialized perspectives while enabling integration into a shared contextual substrate, substantially improving long-horizon planning stability.

    “For example, Intrinsic Memory Agents equip agents with role-specific memory templates that preserve specialized perspectives while enabling integration into a shared contextual substrate, substantially improving long-horizon planning stability (Yuen et al., 2025).”

    From A Survey of Agent Memory in the Second Half: Towards Self-Evolving and Long-Horizon Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Yuen et al., 2025

    Section 3.1 (p. 3) describes agent-specific memories that preserve a shared conversation space, and Section 2.2 (p. 3) says the templated approach maintains specialized perspectives. However, the paper describes a generic template rather than role-specific templates, and its reported planning performance and consistency do not establish a substantial improvement in long-horizon planning stability. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • IMA maintains role-aligned agent-specific memories, while Collaborative Memory and MIRIX focus on permission-aware memory sharing.

    “IMA (Yuen et al., 2025) maintains role-aligned agent-specific memories, while Collaborative Memory (Rezazadeh et al., 2025), MIRIX (Wang and Chen, 2025) focuses on permission-aware memory sharing.”

    From RCR-Router: Efficient Role-Aware Context Routing for Multi-Agent LLM Systems with Structured Memory (2025) · cites this paper as Yuen et al., 2025

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Akari Asai, Zeqiu Wu, Yizhong Wang, Avirup Sil, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. Self-RAG: Learning to retrieve, generate, and critique through self-reflection. In The 12th International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id= hSyW5go0v8 .
  2. Nuo Chen, Hongguang Li, Juhua Huang, Baoyuan Wang, and Jia Li. Compress to impress: Unleashing the potential of compressive memory in real-world long-term conversations, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.11975 . · arXiv
  3. Prateek Chhikara, Dev Khant, Saket Aryan, Taranjeet Singh, and Deshraj Yadav. Mem0: Building production-ready ai agents with scalable long-term memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19413 , 2025. · arXiv
  4. Gheorghe Comanici, Eric Bieber, Mike Schaekermann, Ice Pasupat, Noveen Sachdeva, Inderjit Dhillon, Marcel Blistein, Ori Ram, Dan Zhang, Evan Rosen, Luke Marris, Sam Petulla, Colin Gaffney, Asaf Aharoni, Nathan Lintz, Tiago Cardal Pais, Henrik Jacobsson, Idan Szpektor, NanJiang Jiang, Krishna Haridasan, Ahmed Omran, Nikunj Saunshi, Dara Bahri, Gaurav Mishra, Eric Chu, Toby Boyd, Brad Hekman, Aaron Parisi, Chaoyi Zhang, Kornraphop Kawintiranon, Tania Bedrax-Weiss, Oliver Wang, Ya Xu, Ollie Purkiss, Uri Mendlovic, Ila¨ ı Deutel, Nam Nguyen, Adam Langley, Flip Korn, Lucia Rossazza, Alexandre Ram´ e, Sagar Waghmare, Helen Miller, Vaishakh Keshava, Ying Jian, Xiaofan Zhang, Raluca Ada Popa, Kedar Dhamdhere, Blaˇ z Brataniˇ c, Kyuyeun Kim, Terry Koo, Ferran Alet, Yi ting Chen, Arsha Nagrani, Hannah Muckenhirn, Zhiyuan Zhang, Corbin Quick, Filip Paveti´ c, Duc Dung Nguyen, Joao Carreira, Michael Elabd, Haroon Qureshi, Fabian Mentzer, Yao-Yuan Yang, Danielle Eisenbud, Anmol Gulati, Ellie Talius, Eric Ni, Sahra Ghalebikesabi, Edouard Yvinec, Alaa Saade, Thatcher Ulrich, Lorenzo Blanco, Dan A. Calian, Muhuan Huang, A¨ aron van den Oord, Naman Goyal, Terry Chen, Praynaa Rawlani, Christian Schallhart, Swachhand Lokhande, Xianghong Luo, Jyn Shan, Ceslee Montgomery, Victoria Krakovna, Federico Piccinini, Omer Barak, Jingyu Cui, Yiling Jia, Mikhail Dektiarev, Alexey Kolganov, and Shiyu Huang. Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06261 . · arXiv
  5. Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, Meng Wang, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997 . · arXiv
  6. Taicheng Guo, Xiuying Chen, Yaqi Wang, Ruidi Chang, Shichao Pei, Nitesh V. Chawla, Olaf Wiest, and Xiangliang Zhang. Large language model based multi-agents: A survey of progress and challenges, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01680 . · arXiv
  7. Junda He, Christoph Treude, and David Lo. Llm-based multi-agent systems for software engineering: Literature review, vision and the road ahead, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2404.04834 .
  8. Sirui Hong, Mingchen Zhuge, Jiaqi Chen, Xiawu Zheng, Yuheng Cheng, Ceyao Zhang, Jinlin Wang, Zili Wang, Steven Ka Shing Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, Chenyu Ran, Lingfeng Xiao, Chenglin Wu, and J¨ urgen Schmidhuber. Metagpt: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00352 . · arXiv
  9. Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. , 43(2), January 2025. ISSN 1046-8188. doi: 10.1145/3703155. URL https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3703155 . · DOI · Paper page
  10. Xu Huang, Weiwen Liu, Xiaolong Chen, Xingmei Wang, Hao Wang, Defu Lian, Yasheng Wang, Ruiming Tang, and Enhong Chen. Understanding the planning of llm agents: A survey, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.02716 . · arXiv
  11. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich K¨ uttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rockt¨ aschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 33: 9459-9474, 2020.
  12. Junyou Li, Qin Zhang, Yangbin Yu, Qiang Fu, and Deheng Ye. More agents is all you need, 2024a. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.05120 . · arXiv
  13. Tianle Li, Ge Zhang, Quy Duc Do, Xiang Yue, and Wenhu Chen. Long-context llms struggle with long in-context learning, 2024b. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.02060 . · arXiv
  14. Xinyi Li, Sai Wang, Siqi Zeng, Yu Wu, and Yi Yang. A survey on llm-based multi-agent systems: workflow, infrastructure, and challenges. Vicinagearth , 1(1):9, October 2024c. ISSN 3005-060X. doi: 10.1007/s44336-024-00009-2. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ s44336-024-00009-2 . · DOI · Paper page
  15. OpenAI. Gpt-4o system card, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21276 . https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21276 · arXiv
  16. Charles Packer, Sarah Wooders, Kevin Lin, Vivian Fang, Shishir G. Patil, Ion Stoica, and Joseph E. Gonzalez. Memgpt: Towards llms as operating systems, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2310.08560 . · arXiv
  17. Joon Sung Park, Joseph C. O'Brien, Carrie J. Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03442 . · arXiv
  18. Chen Qian, Zihao Xie, YiFei Wang, Wei Liu, Kunlun Zhu, Hanchen Xia, Yufan Dang, Zhuoyun Du, Weize Chen, Cheng Yang, Zhiyuan Liu, and Maosong Sun. Scaling large language model-based multi-agent collaboration, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07155 . · arXiv
  19. Mohit Shridhar, Xingdi Yuan, Marc-Alexandre Cˆ ot´ e, Yonatan Bisk, Adam Trischler, and Matthew Hausknecht. ALFWorld: Aligning Text and Embodied Environments for Interactive Learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) , 2021. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.03768 . · arXiv
  20. James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. FEVER: a largescale dataset for fact extraction and VERification. In Marilyn Walker, Heng Ji, and Amanda Stent (eds.), Proceedings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers) , pp. 809-819, New Orleans, Louisiana, June 2018. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/N18-1074. URL https://aclanthology.org/N18-1074/ . · DOI · Paper page
  21. Qingyue Wang, Yanhe Fu, Yanan Cao, Shuai Wang, Zhiliang Tian, and Liang Ding. Recursively summarizing enables long-term dialogue memory in large language models, 2025. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2308.15022 .
  22. Jing Xu, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. Beyond goldfish memory: Long-term open-domain conversation. In Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio (eds.), Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) , pp. 5180-5197, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.356. URL https://aclanthology.org/2022. acl-long.356/ . · DOI · Paper page
  23. Wujiang Xu, Kai Mei, Hang Gao, Juntao Tan, Zujie Liang, and Yongfeng Zhang. A-mem: Agentic memory for llm agents, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12110 . · arXiv
  24. Tian Yu, Shaolei Zhang, and Yang Feng. Auto-rag: Autonomous retrieval-augmented generation for large language models, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.19443 . · arXiv
  25. Guibin Zhang, Muxin Fu, Guancheng Wan, Miao Yu, Kun Wang, and Shuicheng Yan. G-memory: Tracing hierarchical memory for multi-agent systems, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2506.07398 . · arXiv
  26. 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, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.13501 . · arXiv
  27. Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P. Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/ abs/2306.05685 . · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yuen, S., Medina, F. G., Su, T., Du, Y., & Sobey, A. J.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2508.08997
arXiv
2508.08997
OpenAlex
W4416243767
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Multi-Agent Systems and Negotiation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
multi-agent systems, large language models, agent memory, heterogeneous agents, context window limitations, memory consistency, structured planning, PDDL, fever, ALFWorld, collaborative problem solving

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