The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 13 are not checked yet.
REMem: Reasoning with Episodic Memory in Language Agent
Open accessAbstract
Humans excel at remembering concrete experiences along spatiotemporal contexts and performing reasoning across those events, i.e., the capacity for episodic memory. In contrast, memory in language agents remains mainly semantic, and current agents are not yet capable of effectively recollecting and reasoning over interaction histories. We identify and formalize the core challenges of episodic recollection and reasoning from this gap, and observe that existing work often overlooks episodicity, lacks explicit event modeling, or overemphasizes simple retrieval rather than complex reasoning. We present REMem, a two-phase framework for constructing and reasoning with episodic memory: 1) Offline indexing, where REMem converts experiences into a hybrid memory graph that flexibly links time-aware gists and facts. 2) Online inference, where REMem employs an agentic retriever with carefully curated tools for iterative retrieval over the memory graph. Comprehensive evaluation across four episodic memory benchmarks shows that REMem substantially outperforms state-of-the-art memory systems such as Mem0 and HippoRAG 2, showing 3.4% and 13.4% absolute improvements on episodic recollection and reasoning tasks, respectively. Moreover, REMem also demonstrates more robust refusal behavior for unanswerable questions.
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.
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: 17
- Adrián Bazaga, Rexhina Blloshmi, Bill Byrne, and Adrià de Gispert. Learning to reason over time: Timeline self-reflection for improved temporal reasoning in language models. CoRR, abs/2504.05258, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2504.05258. URL https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2504.05258. · DOI
- Wenhu Chen, Xinyi Wang, and William Yang Wang. A dataset for answering time- sensitive questions. In Joaquin Vanschoren and Sai-Kit Yeung (eds.), Proceedings of the Neural Information Processing Systems Track on Datasets and Benchmarks 1, NeurIPS Datasets and Benchmarks 2021, December 2021, virtual, 2021. URL https://datasets-benchmarks-proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2021/ hash/1f0e3dad99908345f7439f8ffabdffc4-Abstract-round2.html.
- 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
- Bahare Fatemi, Mehran Kazemi, Anton Tsitsulin, Karishma Malkan, Jinyeong Yim, John Palow- itch, Sungyong Seo, Jonathan Halcrow, and Bryan Perozzi. Test of Time: A benchmark for evaluating llms on temporal reasoning. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learn- ing Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025. OpenReview.net, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=44CoQe6VCq.
- Bernal Jimenez Gutierrez, Yiheng Shu, Yu Gu, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Yu Su. HippoRAG: Neuro- biologically inspired long-term memory for large language models. In Amir Globersons, Lester Mackey, Danielle Belgrave, Angela Fan, Ulrich Paquet, Jakub M. Tomczak, and Cheng Zhang (eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 38: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2024, NeurIPS 2024, Vancouver, BC, Canada, December 10 - 15, 2024, 2024. URL http://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2024/hash/ 6ddc001d07ca4f319af96a3024f6dbd1-Abstract-Conference.html.
- Qianyi Hu, Xinhui Tu, Cong Guo, and Shunping Zhang. Time-aware ReAct agent for tempo- ral knowledge graph question answering. In Luis Chiruzzo, Alan Ritter, and Lu Wang (eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025, pp. 6013-6024, Albu- querque, New Mexico, April 2025a. Association for Computational Linguistics. ISBN 979-8- 89176-195-7. doi: 10.18653/v1/2025.findings-naacl.334. URL https://aclanthology. org/2025.findings-naacl.334/. · DOI
- Philip Nicholas Johnson-Laird. Mental models: Towards a cognitive science of language, inference, and consciousness. Number 6. Harvard University Press, 1983.
- Chankyu Lee, Rajarshi Roy, Mengyao Xu, Jonathan Raiman, Mohammad Shoeybi, Bryan Catan- zaro, and Wei Ping. NV-Embed: Improved techniques for training LLMs as generalist embedding models. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025. OpenReview.net, 2025a. URL https://openreview.net/ forum?id=lgsyLSsDRe.
- Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei jing Zhu. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. pp. 311-318, 2002.
- Valerie F Reyna and Charles J Brainerd. Fuzzy-trace theory: An interim synthesis. Learning and individual Differences, 7(1):1-75, 1995.
- Yifan Wei, Yisong Su, Huanhuan Ma, Xiaoyan Yu, Fangyu Lei, Yuanzhe Zhang, Jun Zhao, and Kang Liu. MenatQA: A new dataset for testing the temporal comprehension and rea- soning abilities of large language models. In Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (eds.), Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, Singapore, December 6-10, 2023, pp. 1434-1447. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023. doi: 10.18653/V1/2023.FINDINGS-EMNLP.100. URL https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/ 2023.findings-emnlp.100. · DOI
- Di Wu, Hongwei Wang, Wenhao Yu, Yuwei Zhang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Dong Yu. LongMemEval: Benchmarking chat assistants on long-term interactive memory. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2025, Singapore, April 24-28, 2025. OpenRe- view.net, 2025. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=pZiyCaVuti.
- Wujiang Xu, Zujie Liang, Kai Mei, Hang Gao, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang. A-MEM: agentic memory for LLM agents. CoRR, abs/2502.12110, 2025. doi: 10.48550/ARXIV.2502.12110. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.12110. · DOI · Paper page
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik R. Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In The Eleventh Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023.
- OpenReview.net, 2023a. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=WE_vluYUL-X.
- Yanzhao Zhang, Mingxin Li, Dingkun Long, Xin Zhang, Huan Lin, Baosong Yang, Pengjun Xie, An Yang, Dayiheng Liu, Junyang Lin, Fei Huang, and Jingren Zhou. Qwen3 Embed- ding: Advancing text embedding and reranking through foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05176, 2025. · arXiv
- Rolf A Zwaan and Gabriel A Radvansky. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological bulletin, 123(2):162, 1998. Table 21: A MuSiQue passage and its extraction results from Mem0 and REMem. (Continued)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MemTrace: Probing What Final Accuracy Misses in Long-Term Memory
Long, X., Chen, Z., Zeng, S., Wang, S., Guo, K., & Tang, J. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.17328
“Mem0, AMem, and REMem are boundary-safe: their boundary ab-stention rates are 99.3%, 97.4%, and 94.0%, but they rarely resolve conflict probes.”
InfluentialSelf-GC: Self-Governing Context for Long-Horizon LLM Agents
Hao, X., Meng, H., Yin, X., Zhu, J., & Cao, C. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2607.00692
“…as MemGPT, LongMem, Mem0, A-MEM, HippoRAG, REMem, and TiMem further study hierarchical memory, persistent stores, graph-structured memory, and temporal consolidation (Packer et al. 2024; Wang et al. 2023; Chhikara et al. 2025; Xu et al. 2025; Gutiérrez et al. 2024; Shu et al. 2026; Li et al. 2026).”
ActionNex: A Production-Grade System for Next-Best-Action Recommendation in Cloud Outage Management
Lin, Z., Hu, H., Hao, M., Zhang, X., 何宇迪, Kulygin, O., Tuna, H., Bansal, C., Li, Z., Chintalapati, M., et al. (2026) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1145/3832783.3834472
Metadata
- Authors
- Shu, Y., Jonnalagedda, S. P., Gao, X., Gutiérrez, B. J., Qi, W., Das, K., Sun, H., & Su, Y.
- Affiliations
- The Ohio State University (US)
- Intuit (United States) (US)
- ORCID
- Su, Yu
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2602.13530
- OpenAlex
- W7129271177
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2443149)
- Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
- Keywords
- episodic memory, language agents, episodic recollection, memory graph, episodicity, refusal behavior, unanswerable questions, retrieval-augmented generation
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