PreprintCited by 1Topic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Learning to Remember: End-to-End Training of Memory Agents for Long-Context Reasoning

Open access
Zhang, Kehao, Gui, Shangtong, Yang, Sheng, Chen, Wei, Feng, Yang·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Long-context LLMs and Retrieval-Augmented Generation defer state tracking and evidence consolidation to query time, which is brittle when facts evolve and answers depend on latent states. We introduce Unified Memory Agent (UMA) for a one-to-many setting: query-agnostic external memory is constructed once from a stream and reused across multiple future QA sessions. A single policy maintains a structured Memory Bank through CRUD operations and answers using both the Memory Bank and raw context. Task-Stratified GRPO uses the mean reward of QA trajectories branching from each sampled memory state to supervise memory maintenance, while normalizing memory and per-question QA groups separately. We also introduce Ledger-QA, a diagnostic benchmark for long-horizon state tracking over accumulated updates. At the 16k budget, UMA-Generalist achieves the highest average score among compared methods across the test-time-learning and accurate-retrieval benchmarks and transfers to Ledger-QA without task-specific training; UMA-Specialist further improves long-horizon tracking after task adaptation. These results support learned proactive memory management for long-context reasoning.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2602.18493

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Prior work leaves open a write-time correctness specification with named predicates and soundness theorems.

    “They leave open a write-time correctness specification with named predicates and soundness theorems.”

    From TOKI: A Bitemporal Operator Algebra for Contradiction Resolution in LLM-Agent Persistent Memory (2026) · cites this paper as [82]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Zhang, K., Gui, S., Yang, S., Chen, W., & Feng, Y.
Affiliations
Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
Pages
29575-29599
OpenAlex
W7131283936
Cited by
0
References
1
FWCI
0.00
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (62376260)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
memory agents, long-context reasoning, external memory, state tracking, memory bank, retrieval-augmented generation, memory maintenance, large language models

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