Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2606.15405

T-Mem: Memory That Anticipates, Not Archives

Abstract

Long-term memory is essential for conversational agents to remain coherent across extended dialogues, follow through on commitments made many sessions earlier, and adapt their behaviour to each user. Current LLM-backed long-term conversational memory, however, is reachability-bounded by the similarity between a query and stored content, both lexical and dense-vector. The approach is effective when query and memory share surface features such as wording or named entities (we call this descriptive). But it misses another, equally valuable class of cases, where query and memory do not share surface features and are tied only by a latent semantic arc (associative). On this regime prevailing long-term memory systems collectively fail. Covering this other half is what allows an assistant, for the first time, to actively draw on past dialogue as a semantic asset. On the memory side, this is the engineering counterpart of what cognitive science calls episodic future thinking: rehearsing past experience for the future contexts under which it will need to be found. We call these write-time rehearsals triggers. We propose T-Mem, the first long-term conversational memory architecture that covers both descriptive and associative recall. At each of two evidence granularities, single facts and full exchanges, T-Mem instantiates one descriptive trigger family and one associative trigger family, so that every memory remains reachable from both surface-similar and relevance-bound queries. As empirical validation, T-Mem reaches state-of-the-art on both LoCoMo and LoCoMo-Plus.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Weidong Guo, Dakai Wang, Zixuan Wang, Hui Liu, Yu Xu. 2026-09-08. T-Mem: Memory That Anticipates, Not Archives. https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.15405

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

CyrillicQA: The Influence of Phonetically Encoded Secret Language on LLM Performance

Due to the selection of their training data, large language models (LLMs) perform best on standard-language inputs from languages using the Latin alphabet with large speaker populations, while disadvantaging other language varieties. Nevertheless, they can also be a versatile tool for preserving precisely such endangered languages. But do they also possess the necessary creativity and capacity for abstraction to decode phonetically encoded language the same way humans do?

cs.CL

Good Pretraining, Bad SFT: Checkpoint Quality Across the Training Stack

Language-model checkpoints are commonly selected by pretraining loss or benchmark scores, assuming that the highest-scoring checkpoint will remain the best starting point for subsequent training. We show that this assumption can fail in a full 30B mixture-of-experts training pipeline. The checkpoints that perform better after the full downstream training stack also have higher solution density, i.e., retain downstream performance under local weight perturbations.

cs.AI

When Robots Mishear Us: Mapping the Safety Risks of Voice-Controlled Embodied AI

We investigate whether automatic speech recognition (ASR) errors in user input can lead to unsafe outputs from Embodied AI (EAI) models. We find that ASR errors can lead to harmful instructions being accepted and executed by EAI models, thereby reducing safety. We simulate ASR errors and combine them with existing safety benchmarks (SafeAgentBench and POEX) to evaluate how different errors affect embodied AI safety. We find that some of them preserve semantic structure but increase harmful ambiguity, while others weaken the model refusal behaviour and allow unsafe plans to be generated and executed. We show that in some cases automatic correction of ASR errors can reduce the risk, but this is not always effective. Overall, we show that ASR errors lead to significant safety risks for embodied AI.

cs.AI