PreprintCited by 0Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorAI-based Problem Solving and PlanningAdvanced Database Systems and Queries

Agentic Memory Management Is the Next Frontier of Information Retrieval

Open access
Ai, Qingyao·2026·arXiv

Abstract

Information retrieval has long been focusing on connecting people with information they need to complete their tasks. Recently, the meaning of this has changed dramatically as more and more AI agents now consume, retain, and act on information on a user's behalf. Consequently, information management now also takes place \emph{inside} the agent in the form of memory management. In this perspective paper, we argue that \emph{agentic memory management} (AMM), which studies the structure, analysis, organization, storage, searching, retrieval, and \emph{use} of information in an intelligent agent's memory, is a natural extension of IR research and an area in which the IR community can make distinctive contributions. Specifically, we first present a system-level framework for AMM and introduce a computational taxonomy of memory objects as \emph{constants}, \emph{functions}, and \emph{operators}, each with distinct retrieval semantics. Then, we compare AMM with established IR research and identify their difference and connections. Last but not least, we outline a research agenda covering benchmarks, candidate principles of memory utility, optimization procedures that mix parametric and non-parametric updates, and more. We hope this paper could attract more people, both inside and outside the IR communities, to think more about AMM problems and research from IR perspectives.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This perspective paper argues that agentic memory management (AMM) — the structure, analysis, organization, storage, searching, retrieval, and use of information inside an intelligent agent's memory — is a natural extension of IR research where the IR community can make distinctive contributions. It offers a system-level framework, a computational taxonomy of memory objects, a comparison with established IR, and a research agenda.

Key findings

  • AMM is defined as concerning "the structure, analysis, organization, storage, searching, retrieval, and use of information in the memory of an intelligent agent," with memory operationally defined as any information outside the agent's current inference call that the system can write or modify and later use to condition behavior.
  • Memory objects are taxonomized computationally as constants C (facts, matched by content), functions F (skills/workflows, matched by applicability), and operators H (preferences/values, matched by scope), with the memory state denoted M = (C, F, H); the paper notes errors compose across levels and the levels have different update dynamics.
  • The paper identifies an "observability inversion": in AMM, downstream use becomes more measurable (retrieved items, context entry, action changes, task success) while topical relevance becomes less informative on its own; evaluation is proposed as a four-part stack — state quality, utilization quality, outcome, and cost.
  • Three candidate principles are stated as conjectures to be tested: C1 memory utility (prioritize by expected marginal contribution to future task reward net of costs), C2 abstraction trade-off (lifting increases transfer but also misapplication risk), and C3 minimal scope (apply corrections at the narrowest scope that explains them).
  • Cited supporting evidence includes: surveys finding more than 37% of people use AI tools instead of search engines; a RAG study where high-scoring retrieved passages lacking the answer reduced accuracy while adding random passages improved it by up to 35% in some configurations; and a U-shaped position profile where LLM accuracy is highest for information near the beginning or end of input.

Methods

  • Design: a perspective/position paper, not an empirical study; it presents a system-level framework (objects, procedures, applications, optimization), a comparison with established IR, and a research agenda.
  • Data: no new dataset or experiment; the paper synthesizes prior literature, including a brief history of IR from Bush's memex through TREC, and situates representative systems (RAG, MemGPT, Generative Agents, Reflexion, Voyager, Mem0, A-MEM, PlugMem) as special cases in a framework table.
  • Analysis: conceptual argumentation and taxonomy construction, including a translation table mapping established IR problems (indexing, relevance, query understanding, click models, personalization granularity, diversity, query performance prediction, compression, user simulation, privacy/fairness) to agentic memory counterparts.

Limitations

  • Stated: the paper notes that AMM theory and foundations are "still consolidating," that existing AMM benchmarks focus on narrow task scenarios without well-defined evaluation protocols, and that recent analyses report memory-system performance varies substantially with the backbone, making non-stationarity a practical concern; the three principles C1–C3 are explicitly offered as conjectures to be tested rather than established results.
  • Evident from the text: the paper reports no empirical validation of its own framework, taxonomy, or conjectures, and its proposed benchmark desiderata and evaluation stack are recommendations rather than tested designs; the paper also acknowledges that end-to-end task success confounds memory quality with agent competence and that outcome-only evaluation provides no diagnosis.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2610.32464

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

8 of 58 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.2 Position Change: From External Tool to Internal Module · p. 4

    Memory is currently the most practical route to continual learning for deployed agents.

    “This position also makes memory currently the most practical route to continual learning for deployed agents: retraining the underlying model for every user, task, and correction is rarely feasible, so what the system learns after deployment often depends on what it writes down [26, 67].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [26] [26] Yuyang Hu, Shichun Liu, Yanwei Yue, Guibin Zhang, Boyang Liu, Fangyi Zhu, Jiahang Lin, et al. 2025. Memory in the Age of AI Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.13564 (2025). -

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [67] [67] Liyuan Wang, Xingxing Zhang, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. 2024. A Comprehensive Survey of Continual Learning: Theory, Method and Application. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 46, 8 (2024), 5362-5383. - source

      The Scenario section says many task- and most online-continual-learning methods use experience replay and a memory buffer. But the survey does not establish that memory is the most practical route for deployed agents, or that retraining for each user, task, and correction is rarely feasible. Its discussion concerns buffers used in model training, not necessarily what an agent writes down after deployment. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.2 Position Change: From External Tool to Internal Module · p. 4

    In each case, retrieved information does not merely inform the agent; it changes what the agent does.

    “In each case, retrieved information does not merely inform the agent; it changes what the agent does.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Interpretationcitation
    § 3.1 Consumer Change: From People to Agents · p. 4

    Agents process information in ways that human cognition models do not predict.

    “Agents process information in ways that such models do not predict.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.1 Consumer Change: From People to Agents · p. 4

    Interfaces for agents call for new designs rather than adaptations of result pages built for people.

    “Interfaces for agents therefore call for new designs rather than adaptations of result pages built for people.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.5 Optimization: Learning What to Remember · p. 6

    Assigning the wrong scope can cause a preference learned from one person to leak into other users' agents.

    “Assigning the wrong scope can cause a preference learned from one person to leak into other users' agents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 82
  • May combine two claims. 71
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4.5 Optimization: Learning What to Remember · p. 6

    Extracting signal from noisy implicit evidence is the problem that click models and unbiased learning to rank were built for.

    “Extracting signal from noisy implicit evidence is the problem that click models and unbiased learning to rank were built for [17, 31].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [17] [17] Aleksandr Chuklin, Ilya Markov, and Maarten de Rijke. 2015. Click Models for Web Search . Morgan & Claypool. - source
    • cites [31] [31] Thorsten Joachims, Adith Swaminathan, and Tobias Schnabel. 2017. Unbiased Learning-to-Rank with Biased Feedback. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 781-789. - source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.2 Position Change: From External Tool to Internal Module · p. 4

    Reflexion stores verbal reflections on failed attempts and conditions later attempts on them.

    “Reflexion stores verbal reflections on failed attempts and conditions later attempts on them [56].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [56] [56] Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023. Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . - source
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.2 Position Change: From External Tool to Internal Module · p. 4

    In Generative Agents, each character starts from a set of seed memories, and the reflections synthesized from its memory stream inform how it plans and responds.

    “in Generative Agents, each character starts from a set of seed memories, and the reflections synthesized from its memory stream inform how it plans and responds [44].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [44] [44] Joon Sung Park, Joseph C. O'Brien, Carrie J. Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S. Bernstein. 2023. Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . - source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 4.1 Definition and Scope · p. 5

    In AI, memory is usually described in terms of persisting state, retaining conversational context, or learning continually without catastrophic forgetting.

    “In AI, memory is usually described in terms of persisting state, retaining conversational context, or learning continually without catastrophic forgetting [32, 67].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [32] [32] James Kirkpatrick, Razvan Pascanu, Neil Rabinowitz, et al. 2017. Overcoming Catastrophic Forgetting in Neural Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, 13 (2017), 3521-3526. - source

      The Introduction (p. 1) describes continual learning as learning consecutive tasks without forgetting previously trained tasks, supporting that part of the sentence. The cited passages do not address memory as persisting state or retaining conversational context, so the paper does not support the full statement attributed to the two citations. (LLM, conf=0.86)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • cites [67] [67] Liyuan Wang, Xingxing Zhang, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. 2024. A Comprehensive Survey of Continual Learning: Theory, Method and Application. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 46, 8 (2024), 5362-5383. - source

      Section 7.1 describes continual learning as addressing catastrophic forgetting by maintaining the stability of old knowledge. Section 4.2 also discusses memory buffers used to recover past information. The paper does not establish that AI memory is usually described in the three ways listed, particularly persisting state or retaining conversational context. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 6 Why IR Should Contribute · p. 8

    The shift toward generative information access is instructive: a vision articulated in IR was realized mainly through LLMs developed outside the IR community.

    “The shift toward generative information access is instructive: a vision articulated in IR [39] was realized mainly through LLMs developed outside the IR community (Section 1).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [39] [39] Donald Metzler, Yi Tay, Dara Bahri, and Marc Najork. 2021. Rethinking Search: Making Domain Experts out of Dilettantes. SIGIR Forum 55, 1 (2021). - source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation
    § 7.4 Hybrid Parametric and Non-Parametric Optimization · p. 10

    Attributing a delayed, sparse task outcome to decisions along a trajectory of writing, retention, retrieval, and use is a counterfactual estimation problem.

    “attributing a delayed, sparse task outcome to decisions along a trajectory of writing, retention, retrieval, and use is a counterfactual estimation problem, for which IR's work on counterfactual and online learning to rank [31] provides a relevant toolkit.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [31] [31] Thorsten Joachims, Adith Swaminathan, and Tobias Schnabel. 2017. Unbiased Learning-to-Rank with Biased Feedback. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 781-789. - source

      The Introduction and Section 4 describe a counterfactual learning-to-rank toolkit for estimating performance from biased, partially observed feedback. But the Introduction and Related Work distinguish the paper’s method from online learning algorithms; it does not offer an online learning-to-rank method. The writing-to-use trajectory is the citing authors’ application of the toolkit, not a setting studied by this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Findingnone given
    § 4.2 Objects: Constants, Functions, and Operators · p. 5

    Current systems commonly store episodes and extracted facts; some also build skills or consolidate preferences.

    “Current systems commonly store episodes and extracted facts; some also build skills or consolidate preferences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingreasoning
    § 4.6 Existing Systems Are Special Cases · p. 7

    Our classification suggests that existing systems emphasize constants and utilization; support for reusable functions, scoped operators, principled forgetting, and learned optimization is less consistent.

    “Our classification suggests that these systems emphasize constants and utilization; support for reusable functions, scoped operators, principled forgetting, and learned optimization is less consistent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Findingnone given
    § 5 Comparing AMM with Established IR · p. 7

    The four dimensions of the problem differ substantially in the degree to which they depart from established IR.

    “The four dimensions of the problem differ substantially in the degree to which they depart from established IR (Table 4).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.2 Objects: Constants, Functions, and Operators · p. 5

    Retrieval happens at three levels with three different matching criteria.

    “retrieval happens at three levels with three different matching criteria”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.3 Two Parallel Changes · p. 5

    If people and agents are both viewed as managing information through external resources and internal memory, IR can act only on the external side for people but on both sides for agents.

    “If people and agents are both viewed as managing information through external resources and internal memory, IR can act only on the external side for people but on both sides for agents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.2 Objects: Constants, Functions, and Operators · p. 6

    The difference is emphasis: Zhai's taxonomy is organized by the purpose of retrieval; ours is organized by the algebraic structure of the content itself, which determines how an item must be matched, composed, and updated.

    “The difference is emphasis: that taxonomy is organized by the purpose of retrieval; ours is organized by the algebraic structure of the content itself, which determines how an item must be matched, composed, and updated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Agentic Memory Management Is the Next Frontier of Information Retrieval · p. 1

    AMM can bring completely new challenges and ideas that significantly broaden the scope of IR research.

    “On the other hand, AMMcan bring completely new challenges and ideas that significantly boarden the scope of IR research.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: A second wave of shifts, the rise of AI agents, is already under way.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § Agentic Memory Management Is the Next Frontier of Information Retrieval · p. 2

    The IR community has a long history and rich experience in user analysis and evaluation methodology.

    “In contrast, IR community has long history and rish experience on user analysis and evaluation methodology.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4.2 Objects: Constants, Functions, and Operators · p. 5

    A common answer from psychology is declarative memory (subdivided into semantic and episodic) versus procedural memory.

    “A common answer comes from psychology: declarative memory (subdivided into semantic and episodic) versus procedural memory [60, 62].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [60] [60] Larry R. Squire. 2004. Memory Systems of the Brain: A Brief History and Current Perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 82, 3 (2004), 171-177. - source
    • cites [62] [62] Endel Tulving. 1972. Episodic and Semantic Memory. In Organization of Memory , Endel Tulving and Wayne Donaldson (Eds.). Academic Press, 381-403. -

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Agentic Memory Management Is the Next Frontier of Information Retrieval · p. 1

    The shift from serving users to serving AI agents in AMM could reshape the way we think about IR.

    “The shifting from serving users to serving AI agents in AMM could reshape the way we think about IR.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: A second wave of shifts, the rise of AI agents, is already under way.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 4.3 Procedures: Learning, Forgetting, Utilization · p. 6

    The second half of utilization (use) has usually occurred outside the retrieval system because a human reader performed it.

    “The second half use - has usually occurred outside the retrieval system because a human reader performed it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.3 Procedures: Learning, Forgetting, Utilization · p. 6

    A principled deletion policy requires estimating an item's future value, which current systems generally approximate with recency, frequency, importance, or model-based judgments.

    “A principled deletion policy requires estimating an item's future value, which current systems generally approximate with recency, frequency, importance, or model-based judgments.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.3 Procedures: Learning, Forgetting, Utilization · p. 6

    The consumer is now a model with its own regularities.

    “However, the consumer is now a model with its own regularities.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 2.4 Two Views of the Same Problems · p. 3

    Task completion is the final goal, but conventional IR systems observe only part of the task, so the field built its methodology around measurable proxies.

    “First, task completion is the final goal, but conventional IR systems observe only part of the task, so the field built its methodology around measurable proxies; Section 5.3 argues that this constraint weakens when the user is an agent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.3 Two Parallel Changes · p. 5

    AMM is the combination in which both changes apply: the consumer is an agent, and IR operates inside it.

    “AMM is the combination in which both changes apply: the consumer is an agent, and IR operates inside it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4.2 Objects: Constants, Functions, and Operators · p. 6

    Zhai categorizes what an intelligent agent needs to retrieve from a complementary angle, distinguishing external information the agent has not seen, the provenance of information, training data for continual learning, rules for reasoning, and past scenarios for problem solving.

    “Zhai [75] categorizes what an intelligent agent needs to retrieve from a complementary angle, distinguishing external information the agent has not seen, the provenance of information, training data for continual learning, rules for reasoning, and past scenarios for problem solving.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [75] [75] ChengXiang Zhai. 2025. Information Retrieval for Artificial General Intelligence: A New Perspective of Information Retrieval Research. In Proceedings of the 48th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 3876-3886. doi:10.1145/3726302.3730349 - source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § 4.1 Definition and Scope · p. 5

    In psychology, memory is the faculty that lets an organism retain and recall experiences, knowledge, and skills.

    “In psychology, memory is the faculty that lets an organism retain and recall experiences, knowledge, and skills [2].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] [2] Richard C. Atkinson and Richard M. Shiffrin. 1968. Human Memory: A Proposed System and Its Control Processes. In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation , Kenneth W. Spence and Janet T. Spence (Eds.). Vol. 2. Academic Press, 89-195. - source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.5 Optimization: Learning What to Remember · p. 6

    Feedback arrives as task outcomes, user corrections, tool errors, and abandoned interactions, and must be interpreted before it can be used.

    “Feedback arrives as task outcomes, user corrections, tool errors, and abandoned interactions, and must be interpreted before it can be used.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2.4 Two Views of the Same Problems · p. 3

    The two views of IR (user and system) are not separate research areas; they often address the same problem from opposite directions.

    “The two views are not separate research areas; they often address the same problem from opposite directions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.2 Objects: Constants, Functions, and Operators · p. 5

    This taxonomy is useful for describing human cognition, and it has shaped both systems and benchmarks.

    “This taxonomy is useful for describing human cognition, and it has shaped both systems and benchmarks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.1 Consumer Change: From People to Agents · p. 4

    When the consumer becomes an agent, IR knowledge about users must be re-examined rather than assumed to transfer.

    “When the consumer becomes an agent, this knowledge must be re-examined rather than assumed to transfer.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 Consumer Change: From People to Agents · p. 4

    A result page shows about ten results in a vertical list ordered by estimated relevance, each with a title and a snippet that helps a person decide whether to click.

    “A result page shows about ten results in a vertical list ordered by estimated relevance, each with a title and a snippet that helps a person decide whether to click [25].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [25] [25] Marti A. Hearst. 2009. Search User Interfaces . Cambridge University Press. - source
    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 2.1 A Brief History · p. 2

    The shape of IR research remained relatively stable for nearly three decades.

    “Ever since then, the shape of IR research remained relatively stable for nearly three decades.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 Consumer Change: From People to Agents · p. 4

    The design of search result pages assumes that people scan from the top and that attention declines with rank, and discounted cumulative gain encodes the same assumption in evaluation.

    “The design assumes that people scan from the top and that attention declines with rank, and discounted cumulative gain encodes the same assumption in evaluation [27].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] [27] Kalervo Järvelin and Jaana Kekäläinen. 2002. Cumulated Gain-Based Evaluation of IR Techniques. ACMTransactions on Information Systems 20, 4 (2002), 422-446. - source
    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 2.4 Two Views of the Same Problems · p. 3

    From the memex onward, both views assumed that the consumer of retrieved information is a person.

    “Third, from the memex onward, both views assumed that the consumer of retrieved information is a person; Section 3 examines what changes when the consumer is an agent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Agentic Memory Management Is the Next Frontier of Information Retrieval · p. 2

    The way Broder developed the taxonomy of Web search could be used in the analysis of agent's information needs; the Cranfield paradigms widely used in TREC and NTCIR could serve as a starting point to inspire new ideas for AMM benchmark construction.

    “For example, the way how Broder [8] developed the taxonomy of Web search could be used in the analysis of agent's information needs; the Crandfield paradigms widely used in TREC [65] and NTCIR [13] could serve as a starting point to inspire new ideas for AMM benchmark construction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [8] [8] Andrei Broder. 2002. A taxonomy of web search. In ACM Sigir forum , Vol. 36. ACM New York, NY, USA, 3-10. - source
    • cites [65] [65] Ellen M Voorhees, Donna K Harman, et al. 2005. TREC: Experiment and evaluation in information retrieval . Vol. 63. MIT press Cambridge. -

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [13] [13] Chung-Chi Chen, Qingyao Ai, and Shoko Wakamiya. 2025. Overview of ntcir-18. Transfer 2, 9 (2025), U4. -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Agentic Memory Management Is the Next Frontier of Information Retrieval · p. 2

    Without rigid theoretical or systematic grounding, most AMM studies look more like ad-hoc engineering efforts rather than scientific works.

    “Without rigid theoretical or systematic grounding, these make most AMM studies look more like ah-hoc engineering efforts rather than scientific works.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.2 Objects: Constants, Functions, and Operators · p. 6

    These objects are often expressed in natural language, can be noisy or inconsistent, and must be matched by applicability or scope inferred from the current task.

    “These objects are often expressed in natural language, can be noisy or inconsistent, and must be matched by applicability or scope inferred from the current task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 3.3 Two Parallel Changes · p. 5

    The consumer change applies even when IR stays external: a search tool that serves an agent must still account for how the agent processes results and in what form they should be delivered.

    “The consumer change applies even when IR stays external: a search tool that serves an agent must still account for how the agent processes results and in what form they should be delivered.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 3.2 Position Change: From External Tool to Internal Module · p. 4

    For people, IR has always been external.

    “For people, IR has always been external.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.4 Applications: What Memory Is For · p. 6

    Memory supports a wide range of human activities and can likewise support many agent behaviors.

    “Memory supports a wide range of human activities and can likewise support many agent behaviors.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.3 Procedures: Learning, Forgetting, Utilization · p. 6

    Forgetting serves more than storage management. It can reduce interference between similar memories, bound retrieval cost as the store grows, and help a system honor deletion requests.

    “Forgetting (delete, decay, merge, compress) serves more than storage management. It can reduce interference between similar memories, bound retrieval cost as the store grows, and help a system honor deletion requests.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Agentic Memory Management Is the Next Frontier of Information Retrieval · p. 1

    AMM brings new opportunities to move IR systems from tools that supply information to modules that directly support the development of continual learning agents and solve an important part of the puzzle to AGI.

    “It brings new opportunities to move IR systems from tools that supply information to modules that directly support the development of continue learning agents and solve an important part of the puzzle to AGI.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: A second wave of shifts, the rise of AI agents, is already under way.
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.4 Applications: What Memory Is For · p. 6

    The application determines what counts as a good memory: a benchmark that measures only fact recall in conversation will systematically favor systems designed for one of these families and neglect the rest.

    “Second, the application determines what counts as a good memory: a benchmark that measures only fact recall in conversation will systematically favor systems designed for one of these families and neglect the rest.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.2 Objects: Constants, Functions, and Operators · p. 5

    Errors compose (supplying a correct fact to an incorrectly selected skill still leads to failure).

    “errors compose (supplying a correct fact to an incorrectly selected skill still leads to failure)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Agentic Memory Management Is the Next Frontier of Information Retrieval · p. 1

    AMM can be viewed as a new form of IR problems in the era of generative AI agents.

    “Our position is that AMM could be viewed as a new form of IR problems in the era of generative AI agents.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: A second wave of shifts, the rise of AI agents, is already under way.
    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Abstract · p. 1

    Agentic memory management (AMM) is a natural extension of IR research and an area in which the IR community can make distinctive contributions.

    “we argue that agentic memory management (AMM), which studies the structure, analysis, organization, storage, searching, retrieval, and use of information in an intelligent agent's memory, is a natural extension of IR research and an area in which the IR community can make distinctive contributions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: People are increasingly asking AI assistants to read, filter, summarize, and act on information on their behalf.
    • Rests on an assumption: A second wave of shifts, the rise of AI agents, is already under way.
    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.1 Definition and Scope · p. 5

    Neither definition alone structures the questions of system design.

    “Neither definition alone structures the questions of system design.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Agentic Memory Management Is the Next Frontier of Information Retrieval · p. 2

    The methodology and research experience from decades of studies on information users and retrieval systems could give IR researchers unique advantages in tackling problems in AMM, particularly at its early stage.

    “The methodology and research experience from decades of studies on information users and retrieval systems could give IR researchers unique advantages in tackling problems in AMM, particularly at its early stage.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: A second wave of shifts, the rise of AI agents, is already under way.
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 Consumer Change: From People to Agents · p. 4

    A language model processes its entire context at once, but it uses that context unevenly: accuracy tends to be highest when relevant information appears near the beginning or the end of the input and lowest when it appears in the middle.

    “A language model processes its entire context at once, but it uses that context unevenly: accuracy tends to be highest when relevant information appears near the beginning or the end of the input and lowest when it appears in the middle [35].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [35] [35] Nelson F. Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. 2024. Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics 12 (2024), 157-173. -

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 2.4 Two Views of the Same Problems · p. 3

    Both views ultimately serve the same end: helping people satisfy an information need or complete a task.

    “Both views ultimately serve the same end. Search, recommendation, advertising, question answering, and personal assistants differ in their interfaces and signals, but each is valuable to the extent that it helps people satisfy an information need or complete a task.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 4.2 Objects: Constants, Functions, and Operators · p. 6

    The overlap between Zhai's taxonomy and ours is substantial: rules correspond roughly to our operators and past scenarios to our functions.

    “The overlap is substantial: rules correspond roughly to our operators and past scenarios to our functions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.2 Objects: Constants, Functions, and Operators · p. 5

    It classifies what is stored, but does not directly specify how a system should match, update, or evaluate each item.

    “It classifies what is stored , but does not directly specify how a system should match, update, or evaluate each item.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation
    § 2.1 A Brief History · p. 2

    One of IR's founding visions was building an external memory system for a person.

    “Therefore, one of IR's founding visions was building an external memory system for a person .”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] [10] Vannevar Bush. 1945. As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly 176, 1 (1945), 101-108. -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 3.2 Position Change: From External Tool to Internal Module · p. 4

    A search engine or recommender supplies information, but what a person does with it is up to that person; the system can rank, highlight, and suggest, but it cannot write into the person's memory or determine the next action.

    “A search engine or recommender supplies information, but what a person does with it is up to that person; the system can rank, highlight, and suggest, but it cannot write into the person's memory or determine the next action.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.1 Consumer Change: From People to Agents · p. 4

    Some human constraints disappear for agents: an agent can read all hundred results of a query or issue dozens of reformulations, at a cost measured in tokens rather than in attention or patience.

    “Some human constraints also disappear: an agent can read all hundred results of a query or issue dozens of reformulations, at a cost measured in tokens rather than in attention or patience.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation
    § 3.1 Consumer Change: From People to Agents · p. 4

    Under a U-shaped profile, placing the best item first is not necessarily the best arrangement, and a rank-discounted metric may misstate how useful a ranking is to an agent.

    “Under such a U-shaped profile, placing the best item first is not necessarily the best arrangement, and a rank-discounted metric may misstate how useful a ranking is to an agent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 4.3 Procedures: Learning, Forgetting, Utilization · p. 6

    Interactive IR already studies how people read, judge, and act on results.

    “Interactive IR already studies how people read, judge, and act on results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.2 Position Change: From External Tool to Internal Module · p. 4

    Because people cannot be redesigned, IR systems adapted to them: to their vocabulary, their biases, and their interfaces.

    “Because people cannot be redesigned, IR systems adapted to them: to their vocabulary, their biases, and their interfaces.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Agentic Memory Management Is the Next Frontier of Information Retrieval · p. 2

    Experience and methodology used in IR studies could provide important guidelines to help better craft the structure of AMM research.

    “Experience and methodology used in IR studies could provide important guidelines to help us better craft the structure of AMM research.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.3 Two Parallel Changes · p. 5

    The position change adds a possibility rather than replacing one.

    “The position change adds a possibility rather than replacing one.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3 From Serving People to Serving Agents · p. 4

    Retrieval has not disappeared, since retrieval-augmented generation made it a standard component of LLM systems, but the retrieved text is now often read by a model before, or instead of, a person.

    “Retrieval has not disappeared, since retrieval-augmented generation [34] made it a standard component of LLM systems, but the retrieved text is now often read by a model before, or instead of, a person.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [34] [34] Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, et al. 2020. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . -

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.4 Applications: What Memory Is For · p. 6

    Many applications are information tasks in the conventional IR sense, but not all of them are: memory supports actions as well as answers, extending beyond the scope of traditional IR.

    “First, many of these are information tasks in the conventional IR sense, but not all of them are: memory supports actions as well as answers, extending beyond the scope of traditional IR.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Agentic Memory Management Is the Next Frontier of Information Retrieval · p. 2

    These limitations reduce the reusability of AMM benchmarks and prevent the field from reaching a broader audience.

    “These limit the reusibility of AMM benchmarks and prevent the field to reach boarder audience.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.1 Consumer Change: From People to Agents · p. 4

    The interface for an agent need not be visual; an agent receives results as text or structured data through a tool call, so presentation becomes a question of selection, format, granularity, and length rather than layout.

    “The interface need not be visual either. An agent receives results as text or structured data through a tool call, so presentation becomes a question of selection, format, granularity, and length rather than layout.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 Consumer Change: From People to Agents · p. 4

    In a study of retrieval-augmented question answering, high-scoring retrieved passages that did not contain the answer reduced accuracy, whereas adding random passages improved it by up to 35% in some configurations.

    “In a study of retrieval-augmented question answering, high-scoring retrieved passages that did not contain the answer reduced accuracy, whereas adding random passages improved it by up to 35% in some configurations [22]; a human reader would be unlikely to be misled by the former or helped by the latter.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [22] [22] Florin Cuconasu, Giovanni Trappolini, Federico Siciliano, Simone Filice, Cesare Campagnano, Yoelle Maarek, Nicola Tonellotto, and Fabrizio Silvestri. 2024. The Power of Noise: Redefining Retrieval for RAG Systems. In Proceedings of the 47th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 719-729. doi:10.1145/3626772.3657834 -

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.2 Objects: Constants, Functions, and Operators · p. 6

    IR remains relevant to unstructured constants and becomes especially central for functions and operators.

    “IR remains relevant to unstructured constants and becomes especially central for functions and operators.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 3.1 Consumer Change: From People to Agents · p. 4

    A person who finds the sentence 'ignore your previous instructions' on a web page does not treat it as a command addressed to them, whereas an LLM-integrated application may follow instructions injected into the content it retrieves.

    “A person who finds the sentence 'ignore your previous instructions' on a web page does not treat it as a command addressed to them, whereas an LLMintegrated application may follow instructions injected into the content it retrieves [24].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] [24] Kai Greshake, Sahar Abdelnabi, Shailesh Mishra, Christoph Endres, Thorsten Holz, and Mario Fritz. 2023. Not What You've Signed Up For: Compromising RealWorld LLM-Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Security . 79-90. doi:10. 1145/3605764.3623985 -

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given
    § 3.1 Consumer Change: From People to Agents · p. 4

    Much of what IR knows about its users describes people rather than information.

    “Much of what IR knows about its users describes people rather than information (Section 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 2.4 Two Views of the Same Problems · p. 3

    IR advanced through a combination of system building and foundational work, including shared decision principles, reusable models, and test collections that made results comparable; agent-memory research would benefit from the same combination.

    “Second, IR advanced through a combination of system building and foundational work, including shared decision principles, reusable models, and test collections that made results comparable; agent-memory research would benefit from the same combination.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.2 Objects: Constants, Functions, and Operators · p. 5

    The levels have different update dynamics, since a single corrected preference should change many future executions while a corrected fact should change only the executions that use it.

    “the levels have different update dynamics, since a single corrected preference should change many future executions while a corrected fact should change only the executions that use it”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 3.3 Two Parallel Changes · p. 5

    The two changes are parallel rather than competing.

    “The two changes are parallel rather than competing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 2.1 A Brief History · p. 2

    The importance of memory systems became even more significant with the rise of the Internet in the 1990s.

    “When it came to the 1990s, with the rise of Internet, the importance of such 'memory systems' has become even more significant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.3 Evaluation: The Observability Inversion · p. 8

    In AMM, this constraint weakens. The consumer of the information is a system that we can instrument.

    “In AMM, this constraint weakens. The consumer of the information is a system that we can instrument.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 6 Why IR Should Contribute · p. 8

    IR offers additional concepts and methods that should inform this work more systematically.

    “Our claim is that IR offers additional concepts and methods that should inform this work more systematically.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 7.4 Hybrid Parametric and Non-Parametric Optimization · p. 10

    The boundary between parametric and non-parametric knowledge is currently determined by convenience, and a principled account of consolidation is missing.

    “The boundary is currently determined by convenience, and a principled account of consolidation - what to compile into parameters, when, and how to reverse it - is missing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 5.1 Objects: A Difference of Degree · p. 7

    Both fields manage many forms of information, and both must handle scale, redundancy, staleness, and noise.

    “Both fields manage many forms of information, and both must handle scale, redundancy, staleness, and noise.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 7.4 Hybrid Parametric and Non-Parametric Optimization · p. 10

    Current accounts provide limited guidance about when repeated textual revision improves task performance, whether the process converges, or how to distinguish a useful update from mere rephrasing.

    “current accounts provide limited guidance about when repeated revision improves task performance, whether the process converges, or how to distinguish a useful update from mere rephrasing.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Asking a language model to revise its own notes is often effective in practice.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 7.1 Toward Systematic Evaluation Protocols · p. 8

    Recalling a stated fact and acquiring a workflow that transfers to a new site are different capabilities, and a single aggregate score obscures which capabilities a system has acquired.

    “Recalling a stated fact and acquiring a workflow that transfers to a new site are different capabilities, and a single aggregate score obscures which capabilities a system has acquired.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.3 Evaluation: The Observability Inversion · p. 8

    Evaluation can therefore connect component behavior to downstream outcomes more directly. We call this shift the observability inversion: downstream use becomes more measurable, while topical relevance becomes less informative on its own.

    “Evaluation can therefore connect component behavior to downstream outcomes more directly. We call this shift the observability inversion : downstream use becomes more measurable, while topical relevance becomes less informative on its own.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 6 Why IR Should Contribute · p. 8

    AMM is currently studied mostly in the NLP, ML, and agent communities, and much of that work already draws on retrieval.

    “AMMis currently studied mostly in the NLP, ML, and agent communities, and much of that work already draws on retrieval.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 7.3 Toward a Theory of Memory Utility · p. 9

    As data and model capacity grew, learned systems increasingly absorbed factors that IR theories had enumerated explicitly, which accelerated progress but provided less conceptual scaffolding.

    “As data and model capacity grew, learned systems increasingly absorbed factors that these theories had enumerated explicitly [40], which accelerated progress but provided less conceptual scaffolding.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [40] [40] Bhaskar Mitra and Nick Craswell. 2018. An Introduction to Neural Information Retrieval. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 13, 1 (2018), 1-126. - source
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 7.4 Hybrid Parametric and Non-Parametric Optimization · p. 10

    For non-parametric updates, something must play the role that gradient descent plays for parametric models.

    “For non-parametric updates, something must play the role that gradient descent plays for parametric models.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 8 Conclusion · p. 10

    The field built foundations for library collections and later for the web, starting from the vision of the memex as an external memory for a person.

    “The field built such foundations for library collections and later for the web, starting from the vision of the memex as an external memory for a person [10].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [10] [10] Vannevar Bush. 1945. As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly 176, 1 (1945), 101-108. -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 6 Why IR Should Contribute · p. 8

    IR aims to help people satisfy information needs and complete tasks. AMM aims to provide an agent with the information it needs to complete a task on a user's behalf. AMM adds an intermediary while preserving the same objective.

    “IR aims to help people satisfy information needs and complete tasks (Section 2). AMM aims to provide an agent with the information it needs to complete a task on a user's behalf. AMMadds an intermediary while preserving the same objective.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.3 Evaluation: The Observability Inversion · p. 8

    In AMM, more of the objective is observable, so component measurements can become diagnostics that explain an outcome.

    “In AMM, more of the objective is observable, so component measurements can become diagnostics that explain an outcome.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning
    § 5.3 Evaluation: The Observability Inversion · p. 7

    IR's ultimate goal is to help someone finish a task, but conventional IR systems often see only part of it.

    “IR's ultimate goal is to help someone finish a task, but conventional IR systems often see only part of it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.3 Evaluation: The Observability Inversion · p. 8

    We can observe which items were retrieved, whether they entered the context, whether the agent's action changed as a result, and whether the task succeeded.

    “We can observe which items were retrieved, whether they entered the context, whether the agent's action changed as a result, and whether the task succeeded.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 5.3 Evaluation: The Observability Inversion · p. 8

    Existing benchmarks concentrate on outcome for a narrow slice of state quality; few isolate utilization quality, and the validity of the automated metrics used for outcome is itself contested.

    “Existing benchmarks concentrate on (iii) for a narrow slice of (i); few isolate (ii), and the validity of the automated metrics used for (iii) is itself contested [28].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] [28] Dongming Jiang, Yi Li, Songtao Wei, Jinxin Yang, Ayushi Kishore, Alysa Zhao, Dingyi Kang, Xu Hu, Feng Chen, Qiannan Li, and Bingzhe Li. 2026. Anatomy of Agentic Memory: Taxonomy and Empirical Analysis of Evaluation and System Limitations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.19320 (2026). -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 7.1 Toward Systematic Evaluation Protocols · p. 8

    Most AMM benchmarks concentrate on conversational fact recall, although some have begun to include streams of user feedback; recent analysis raises concerns about saturation, the validity of automated judges, backbone sensitivity, and incomplete cost reporting.

    “Most concentrate on conversational fact recall, although some have begun to include streams of user feedback [1]; recent analysis also raises concerns about saturation, the validity of automated judges, backbone sensitivity, and incomplete cost reporting [28].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [1] [1] Qingyao Ai, Yichen Tang, Changyue Wang, Jianming Long, Weihang Su, and Yiqun Liu. 2025. MemoryBench: A Benchmark for Memory and Continual Learning in LLM Systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.17281 (2025). -

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [28] [28] Dongming Jiang, Yi Li, Songtao Wei, Jinxin Yang, Ayushi Kishore, Alysa Zhao, Dingyi Kang, Xu Hu, Feng Chen, Qiannan Li, and Bingzhe Li. 2026. Anatomy of Agentic Memory: Taxonomy and Empirical Analysis of Evaluation and System Limitations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.19320 (2026). -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 6 Why IR Should Contribute · p. 8

    IR has shown how a proxy that diverges from the objective can distort a system and how implicit feedback can mislead when position and selection biases are ignored.

    “IR has shown how a proxy that diverges from the objective can distort a system and how implicit feedback can mislead when position and selection biases are ignored [31].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [31] [31] Thorsten Joachims, Adith Swaminathan, and Tobias Schnabel. 2017. Unbiased Learning-to-Rank with Biased Feedback. In Proceedings of the Tenth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining . 781-789. - source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5.3 Evaluation: The Observability Inversion · p. 8

    End-to-end task success confounds memory quality with the agent's competence: a strong backbone can compensate for a bad memory, and a weak one can waste a good one.

    “First, end-to-end task success confounds memory quality with the agent's competence: a strong backbone can compensate for a bad memory, and a weak one can waste a good one.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given
    § 7.3 Toward a Theory of Memory Utility · p. 9

    IR advanced through a combination of system building and foundational work.

    “As Section 2 notes, IR advanced through a combination of system building and foundational work.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 8 Conclusion · p. 10

    When an agent acts on a person's behalf, the information that matters is increasingly the information the agent keeps for itself, and managing it well is what allows an assistant to improve with use rather than start afresh in every session.

    “When an agent acts on a person's behalf, the information that matters is increasingly the information the agent keeps for itself, and managing it well is what allows an assistant to improve with use rather than start afresh in every session.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 7.1 Toward Systematic Evaluation Protocols · p. 8

    IR made competing claims comparable through shared evaluation protocols, from the Cranfield experiments to TREC and NTCIR, and progress in neural IR accelerated when large shared collections became available.

    “IR made competing claims comparable through shared evaluation protocols, from the Cranfield experiments [19] to TREC [65] and NTCIR [13], and progress in neural IR accelerated when large shared collections became available [42].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [19] [19] Cyril Cleverdon. 1967. The Cranfield Tests on Index Language Devices. Aslib Proceedings 19, 6 (1967), 173-194. -

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [65] [65] Ellen M Voorhees, Donna K Harman, et al. 2005. TREC: Experiment and evaluation in information retrieval . Vol. 63. MIT press Cambridge. -

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [13] [13] Chung-Chi Chen, Qingyao Ai, and Shoko Wakamiya. 2025. Overview of ntcir-18. Transfer 2, 9 (2025), U4. -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 8 Conclusion · p. 10

    AMM can be viewed as a new form of IR problem, although it is currently approached mainly through system building and analogies to human memory.

    “AMM can therefore be viewed as a new form of IR problem, although it is currently approached mainly through system building and analogies to human memory.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.5 Optimization: Learning What to Remember · p. 7

    Credit assignment asks which memory decisions contributed to an outcome. A task succeeds or fails after a long sequence of decisions about what to write, retain, retrieve, and use.

    “Credit assignment asks which memory decisions contributed to an outcome. A task succeeds or fails after a long sequence of decisions about what to write, retain, retrieve, and use.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 7.4 Hybrid Parametric and Non-Parametric Optimization · p. 10

    Some knowledge belongs in model weights, whereas other knowledge belongs in text.

    “some knowledge belongs in weights, whereas other knowledge belongs in text.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 8 Conclusion · p. 10

    The activities named in Salton's definition of IR remain the same, but the consumer for which they are performed has changed, and AMM adds the use of information by the agent itself.

    “The activities it names - structuring, analyzing, organizing, storing, searching, and retrieving - remain the same, but the consumer for which they are performed has changed, and AMM adds one more: the use of information by the agent itself.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 5.2 Users: The Agent as a New Kind of User · p. 7

    IR's user models describe people: their needs, their cognitive limits, their behavior under uncertainty. AMM's consumer is a model.

    “IR's user models describe people: their needs, their cognitive limits, their behavior under uncertainty. AMM's consumer is a model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 7.4 Hybrid Parametric and Non-Parametric Optimization · p. 10

    A memory system can improve from experience through parametric updates to model weights and through non-parametric updates to the content and structure of its store.

    “Amemorysystem can improve from experience through parametric updates to model weights and through non-parametric updates to the content and structure of its store.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 5.2 Users: The Agent as a New Kind of User · p. 7

    It may over-rely on retrieved content that contradicts its parametric knowledge, or under-use content that is correct but unconventionally formatted.

    “It may over-rely on retrieved content that contradicts its parametric knowledge, or under-use content that is correct but unconventionally formatted.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 7.4 Hybrid Parametric and Non-Parametric Optimization · p. 10

    The organization of the memory store is itself a decision variable, and changing it changes what can be retrieved.

    “the organization of the store is itself a decision variable, and changing it changes what can be retrieved.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § 5.3 Evaluation: The Observability Inversion · p. 7

    A search engine observes a query, a ranking, and some clicks; it does not observe whether the report was written, the trip was booked, or the bug was fixed.

    “A search engine observes a query, a ranking, and some clicks; it does not observe whether the report was written, the trip was booked, or the bug was fixed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 4.5 Optimization: Learning What to Remember · p. 7

    Improving the system requires attributing the outcome to points in that chain and then updating the content of an item, the structure of the store, or the policy that determines when to retrieve.

    “Improving the system requires attributing the outcome to points in that chain and then updating the content of an item, the structure of the store, or the policy that determines when to retrieve.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 4.5 Optimization: Learning What to Remember · p. 7

    Some of these updates can be parametric, but most are not: they modify text and organization.

    “Some of these updates can be parametric, but most are not: they modify text and organization.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 6 Why IR Should Contribute · p. 8

    IR has spent decades building reproducible ways to study users and to evaluate systems that serve them, including simulation as a first-class methodology.

    “IR has spent decades building reproducible ways to study users and to evaluate systems that serve them, including simulation as a first-class methodology [4].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4] [4] Krisztian Balog and ChengXiang Zhai. 2024. User Simulation for Evaluating Information Access Systems. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 18, 1-2 (2024), 1-261. -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 7.3 Toward a Theory of Memory Utility · p. 9

    Neither end-to-end learning nor system-design routes currently serves AMM well.

    “Neither route currently serves AMM well.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: System designs often rely on analogies to human memory without stating the conditions under which that design should help.
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 7.3 Toward a Theory of Memory Utility · p. 9

    Violating the minimal-scope principle offers one plausible explanation for personalization failures in which an agent overgeneralizes a local correction.

    “Violating this principle offers one plausible explanation for personalization failures in which an agent overgeneralizes a local correction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § 8 Conclusion · p. 10

    Salton's definition of IR has outlived the technology for which it was written and remains applicable to the transition to agentic memory management.

    “Salton's definition of IR has outlived the technology for which it was written and remains applicable to this transition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 6 Why IR Should Contribute · p. 8

    Structurally, a memory system can be viewed as a small, personal, write-heavy, feedback-rich retrieval system.

    “Structurally, a memory system can be viewed as a small, personal, write-heavy, feedback-rich retrieval system.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § 7.5 Studying the Agent, and Keeping the Human in the Loop · p. 10

    Poisoning of memory stores and membership inference against them are emerging concerns.

    “poisoning of memory stores [15] and membership inference against them [14] are emerging concerns.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [15] [15] Zhaorun Chen, Zhen Xiang, Chaowei Xiao, Dawn Song, and Bo Li. 2024. AgentPoison: Red-teaming LLM Agents via Poisoning Memory or Knowledge Bases. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . -

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [14] [14] Kai Chen, Yan Pang, and Tianhao Wang. 2026. MRMMIA: Membership Inference Attacks on Memory in Chat Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.27825 (2026). -

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given
    § 5.1 Objects: A Difference of Degree · p. 7

    The main differences are that memory content is often produced through interaction rather than authored independently, and is frequently user-specific.

    “The main differences are that memory content is often produced through interaction rather than authored independently, and is frequently user-specific.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given
    § 7.3 Toward a Theory of Memory Utility · p. 9

    Marginal contribution of memory items is not additive across items.

    “marginal contribution is not additive across items.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
110 of 110
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    People are increasingly asking AI assistants to read, filter, summarize, and act on information on their behalf.

    “In a growing range of applications, people are asking AI assistants to read, filter, summarize, and act on information on their behalf.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A second wave of shifts, the rise of AI agents, is already under way.

    “Now, a second wave of shifts, i.e., the rise of AI agents, is already under way.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The consumer of retrieved information is increasingly an agent rather than a person.

    “When an agent performs a multi-step task for a user booking a trip, refactoring a module, or preparing a literature review - information is no longer served to a person directly, but becomes the internal state for the system that does the work.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Optimization cannot be evaluated on static data.

    “Optimization cannot be evaluated on static data.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    System designs often rely on analogies to human memory without stating the conditions under which that design should help.

    “system designs often rely on analogies to human memory - humans have episodic memory, so the system has an episodic store - without stating the conditions under which that design should help.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Format, granularity, ordering, and attribution all change whether an item is used.

    “format, granularity, ordering, and attribution all change whether an item is used.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Asking a language model to revise its own notes is often effective in practice.

    “It is often effective in practice”
7 of 7

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. [5][5] Nicholas J. Belkin. 1980. Anomalous States of Knowledge as a Basis for Information Retrieval. Canadian Journal of Information Science 5, 1 (1980), 133-143. -
  2. [10][10] Vannevar Bush. 1945. As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly 176, 1 (1945), 101-108. -
  3. [20][20] W. Bruce Croft, Donald Metzler, and Trevor Strohman. 2010. Search Engines: Information Retrieval in Practice . Addison-Wesley. -
  4. [49][49] Stephen E. Robertson. 1977. The Probability Ranking Principle in IR. Journal of Documentation 33, 4 (1977), 294-304. -
  5. [51][51] Gerard Salton, Anita Wong, and Chung-Shu Yang. 1975. A Vector Space Model for Automatic Indexing. Commun. ACM 18, 11 (1975), 613-620. -
  6. [52][52] Mark Sanderson. 2010. Test Collection Based Evaluation of Information Retrieval Systems. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 4, 4 (2010), 247-375. -
  7. [53][53] Mark Sanderson and W. Bruce Croft. 2012. The History of Information Retrieval Research. Proc. IEEE 100, Special Centennial Issue (2012), 1444-1451. -
  8. [54][54] Harrisen Scells, Shengyao Zhuang, and Guido Zuccon. 2022. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Green Information Retrieval Research. In Proceedings of the 45th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval . 2825-2837. -
  9. [55][55] Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Roberto Dessì, Roberta Raileanu, Maria Lomeli, Luke Zettlemoyer, Nicola Cancedda, and Thomas Scialom. 2023. Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Tools. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . -
  10. [56][56] Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. 2023. Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . -
  11. [57][57] Craig Silverstein, Hannes Marais, Monika Henzinger, and Michael Moricz. 1999. Analysis of a Very Large Web Search Engine Query Log. ACM SIGIR Forum 33, 1 (1999), 6-12. -
  12. [58][58] Ashudeep Singh and Thorsten Joachims. 2018. Fairness of Exposure in Rankings. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . 2219-2228. -
  13. [59][59] Karen Spärck Jones. 1972. A Statistical Interpretation of Term Specificity and Its Application in Retrieval. Journal of Documentation 28, 1 (1972), 11-21. -
  14. [60][60] Larry R. Squire. 2004. Memory Systems of the Brain: A Brief History and Current Perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 82, 3 (2004), 171-177. -
  15. [61][61] Yi Tay, Vinh Q. Tran, Mostafa Dehghani, Jianmo Ni, Dara Bahri, Harsh Mehta, Zhen Qin, Kai Hui, Zhe Zhao, Jai Gupta, Tal Schuster, William W. Cohen, and Donald Metzler. 2022. Transformer Memory as a Differentiable Search Index. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . -
  16. [64][64] C. J. van Rijsbergen. 1979. Information Retrieval (2nd ed.). Butterworths, London. -
  17. [65][65] Ellen M Voorhees, Donna K Harman, et al. 2005. TREC: Experiment and evaluation in information retrieval . Vol. 63. MIT press Cambridge. -
  18. [67][67] Liyuan Wang, Xingxing Zhang, Hang Su, and Jun Zhu. 2024. A Comprehensive Survey of Continual Learning: Theory, Method and Application. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 46, 8 (2024), 5362-5383. -
  19. [68][68] Di Wu, Hongwei Wang, Wenhao Yu, Yuwei Zhang, Kai-Wei Chang, and Dong Yu. 2025. LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory. In International Conference on Learning Representations . -
  20. [69][69] Fangyuan Xu, Weijia Shi, and Eunsol Choi. 2024. RECOMP: Improving RetrievalAugmented LMs with Compression and Selective Augmentation. In International Conference on Learning Representations . -
  21. [70][70] Wujiang Xu, Zujie Liang, Kai Mei, Hang Gao, Juntao Tan, and Yongfeng Zhang. 2025. A-MEM: Agentic Memory for LLM Agents. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems . -
  22. [72][72] Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. In International Conference on Learning Representations . -

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Ai, Q.
Affiliations
Tsinghua University (CN)
Corresponding author
Ai, Qingyao
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7223676938
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Advanced Database Systems and Queries
Keywords
AI agents, agent memory, information retrieval, memory objects, memory organization, benchmarking, information management

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-11-05.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-11-05.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

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