CAM: A Constructivist View of Agentic Memory for LLM-Based Reading Comprehension
Authors: Rui Li
Zeyu Zhang
Xiaohe Bo
Zihang Tian
Xu Chen
Quanyu Dai
Zhenhua Dong
Ruiming Tang
Venue: NeurIPS 2025 poster ()
Keywords: LLM-Based Reading Agent
Long-Text Reading Comprehension
LLM Memory
Primary area: applications
TL;DR: This work presents a more robust and efficient memory system for LLM-based reading agents, inspired by Jean Piaget's Constructivist Theory.

Abstract: Current Large Language Models (LLMs) are confronted with overwhelming information volume when comprehending long-form documents. This challenge raises the imperative of a cohesive memory module, which can elevate vanilla LLMs into autonomous reading agents. Despite the emergence of some heuristic approaches, a systematic design principle remains absent. To fill this void, we draw inspiration from Jean Piaget's Constructivist Theory, illuminating three traits of the agentic memory---structured schemata, flexible assimilation, and dynamic accommodation. This blueprint forges a clear path toward a more robust and efficient memory system for LLM-based reading comprehension. To this end, we develop CAM, a prototype implementation of Constructivist Agentic Memory that simultaneously embodies the structurality, flexibility, and dynamicity. At its core, CAM is endowed with an incremental overlapping clustering algorithm for structured memory development, supporting both coherent hierarchical summarization and online batch integration. During inference, CAM adaptively explores the memory structure to activate query-relevant information for contextual response, akin to the human associative process. Compared to existing approaches, our design demonstrates dual advantages in both performance and efficiency across diverse long-text reading comprehension tasks, including question answering, query-based summarization, and claim verification.

CAM: A Constructivist View of Agentic Memory for LLM-Based Reading Comprehension
Rui Li
Zeyu Zhang 1.1.3 Xiaohe Bo Zihang Tian 1-14
Xu Chen 11.18 1
Quanyu Dai Zhenhua Dong² Ruiming Tang²
!Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University China
Huawei Noah's Ark Lab
(lirui121200, xu. www.chennn.eeeeeee cn daiquanyuQhuawei.com com
Abstract
Current Large Language Models (LLMs) are confronted with overwhelming infor- mation volume when comprehending long-form documents. This challenge raises the imperative a cohesive memory module, which can elevate vanilla LLMs into autonomous reading agents. Despite the emergence of some heuristic approaches, a systematic design principle remains absent. To fill this void, we draw inspiration from Jean Piager's 's Constructivist Theory, illuminating three traits of the agentic schemata. flexible assimilation, and dynamic accommodation. This blueprint forges clear path toward more robust and efficient memory system for LLMM-based reading comprehension. To this end, we develop CAM, a prototype implementation of Constructivist Agentic Memory that simultaneously embodies the structurality, flexibility, and dynamicity. At its core, CAM is endowed with an incremental overlapping clustering algorithm for structured memory development, supporting both coherent hierarchical summarization and online batch integration. During inference, CAM adaptively explores the memory structure activate query- relevant information for contextual response, akin to the human associative process. Compared to existing approaches, our design demonstrates dual advantages in both performance and efficiency across diverse long- text reading comprehension tasks, including question answering, query-based summarization, and claim verification.
Introduction
Transformer-basee Large Language Models (LLMs) 1
Accommodation
have emerged as transformative tools the realm of natural language understanding. Nevertheless, their prowess tends to
falter when confronted with extremely long documents [5] b).
Such challenge arises not only due to the bounded context capacity of LLMs, but more fundamentally because the difficulty in perceiving and aggregating critical information fragments dispersed across distant parts of lengthy texts 87.
New Schemata
Adapted Schemata
Assimilation
A prevalent approach to addressing these limitations involves equipping L.LSs with explicit memory modules 9 for infor- mation storage and retrieval, akin to human cognitive patterns. Such modules maintain cohesive "mental" representation of ingested content, enabling LLMs to function as autonomous reading agents that can store, retrieve, and reason over long-range dependencies. However, despite the recent proliferation of agentic memory approaches [TGH8)) they generally mimic human memory at a superficial level, lacking a coherent principle as the basis for their designs. This leads us to raise critical question: what are the traits of an effective memory module for LLM-based reading agents?
000
Memory development pro- cess under constructivist perspective.
Figure 1:
WWor done during Rui Li's internship at Huawei Noah's Ark Lab. 'Bijjig Key Laboratory of Research on I. Large Models and Intelligent Governnnee. FEnineeriig Research Center of Next-Generation Intelligent Search and Recommendation, MOE. #Corresponding authors.
39th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NcurIPS 2025).

---

Table 1: Method comparison from the constructivist view. See Appendix B for more details.
Methods
Type
Structurality
Flexibility
Dynamicity
MemGPT M
Online
x
x
X
ReadAgent 13
Online
x
x
RAPTOR 14
Offline
X
X
GraphRAG 15
Offline
X
MemTTre 18
Online
CAM (Ours)
Online (Batch)
To answer this basic question, we move beyond superficial designs and instead delve into the under- pinnings of human cognition. In particular, we draw upon insights from Jean Piaget's Constructivist Theory [19 [2], a comnerstone of cognitive science that has profoundly shaped the understanding of how human memory develops. As stated in this theory, memory refers to evolving mental system, which actively organizes the received information into coherent cognitive structures (i.c., schemata). When new information arrives, two fundamental operations (as shown in Figure I drive the schemata development process: (1) assimilation, to fit new information into the current memory schemata [23] and (2) accommodation, to alter the current schemata if new information cannot be readily fitted [2]
These two operations collectively preserve the cognitive equilibration 19 21 of memory schemata, balanced growth state that facilitates more accurate mental representations of received information. Notably, assimilation exhibits flexibility, allowing each information unit to be integrated into multiple relevant locations within the schemata; accommodation exhibits dynamicity, enabling the schemata to evolve through localized adjustments without the need for wholesale reconstruction upon every input. Inspired by such a constructivist perspective, we posit three key memory traits to guide the design of LLM-based reading strrccured schemata. flexible assimilation, and dynamic accommodation.
Current agentic memory systems, however, inherently deviate from such design principle. As shown in Table []] early works (e.g.. MemGPT [11, MemoryBant [12, and ReadAgent (13) treat memory tabular repository to independently store textual chunks compressed gists. Such unstructured representations fail to capture the underlying information associations behind long texts. Some recent approaches (e.g. RAPTOR (14), GraphRAG (15), HippoRAG (16), and Mem'rree (18) recognize the importance of memory structurality, yet none simultaneously embodies the flexibility and dynamicity during memory structure development. Therefore, we further pursue new memory implementation that adheres to the constructivist design principle for LLM-based reading agents.
To this end, we present CAM, prototype of Constructivist Agentic Memory, aimed at enhancing the long-text reading comprehension capabilities of LLMs. For memory structurality, CAM actively organizes the input documents into unified hierarchical architecture. At the foundation layer, CAM constructs a coherent semantic network formed by raw text chunks, capturing both textual similarity and narrative coherence. Higher-level memory nodes abstract summaries aggregated from closely related lower-level nodes. In the process of building this hierarchy, CAM is endowed with a local-forst incremental overlapping clustering algorithm support both flexible assimilation (i.e., lower-level memory node can contribute to multiple higher-level abstractions) and dynamic accommodation (i.e., the memory structure efficiently adapts to new inputs). Notably, our design naturally allows CAM to integrate newly arrived chunks in batches, offering significant efficiency advantages (over 4x faster, see Section [5.3) over existing methods that remain confined to offline or entry-wise online settings. At inference time, CAM adopts a Frune-and-Gin Grow associative strategy to activate the query-relevany memory nodes for contextual response, delivering high accuracy over diverse long-text reading tasks.
The contributions of this paper are summarized as follows:
Blueprint:
Drawing upon Piaget's Constructivist Theory, we present an explicit design principle for agentic memory in LLM-based reading comprehension, highlighting three critical traits of the memory module: structured schemata, flexible assimilation, and dynamic accommodation.
Prototype:
We then develop a prototype of Constructivist. Agentic Memory (CAM) to enhance the reading comprehension capabilities of LLMs, using an incremental overlapping clustering algorithm for memory development and Prune-and- strategy for memory retrieval.
We evaluate our design on question answering, query-based summarization, and claim verification benchmarks, covering both single- and multi-document scenarios. The results demonstrate the dual superiority of CAM in performance and efficiency over existing methods.
Evaluation:

---

2 Background
Long-Context LLMs Due to the limited context capacity, LLMs struggle with handling long texts. The most direct solution is to fine-tune LLMs with extended context windows [2]] Nevertheless, LLM performance tends to decline as input texts lengthen, even when they do not exceed the specified
context length [5 6 8
For this issue, many works resort to memory-augmenteed LLM reading agents.
Tabular Memory Early LLM-based reading agents split lengthy texts into short chunks for memory storage [3. Upon receiving a user query, relevant chunks are recalled to facilitate LLM inference,
aligning with the standard Retrieval- Auggmeeee Generation techniques 30 32
MemoryBann [12]
and Ret-LLM [33] manage full historical records with dense retrieval models and read-write functions.
MemGPT [T] employs cache-like architectures to prioritize recent information. SCM [34] improves the ability of LLMs to maintain long-term memory through memory stream and controller modules. ReadAgent
13 compresses each text chunk into gist memory, with interactive look-up process to access related information as needed for specific tasks. While simple to implement, these unstructured memory designs fall short when critical information is dispersed across multiple entries S 17
Recent advances recognize the limitations of unstructured information storage, shifting toward the design of structured memory systems. Mem Walker [35] processes the long context into a tree of summary nodes from the bottom up and navigates this tree in search of relevant content for inference. Similarly, RAPTOR [4] also organizes texts into recursive tree, clustering summaries at each layer to produce higher-level understandings. GraphRAG [5] extracts entities and relations from the context to build knowledge graph, and generates summaries for groups of related entities. When a question is posed, each summary node provides partial information, which is then combined to form the final answer. GraphReader (36) also transforms the input texts into a graph structure, with a set of predefined functions to facilitate planning and reflection for inference. Although these works effectively structure large-scale textual data to enhance retrieval and generation capabilities, they are confined to static corpora, requiring complete reconstruction to integrate new information. To resolve this, MemTree [8] maintains a dynamic tree-structured memory with an online top-down clustering algorithm. However, it can only integrate new chunks sequentially, with a potential risk of structural imbalance [37]. Moreover, as summarized in Table [ none of these works simultaneously embodies the flcxibility and dynamicity during memory development. See Appendix B for more discussion.
Structured Memory
3 Blueprint: Structurality, Flexibility, and Dynamicity
As the first step, we seek for explicit memory design blueprint for LLM-based reading agents. Unlike heuristic approaches in existing literature, we ground our design in a foundational cognitive development framework-
Piaget's Constructivist Theory (refer to Appendix for an overview). Inspired by this theory, we posit three critical memory traits as design objectives: structured schemata, flexible assimilation, and dynamic accommodation. These traits not mutually exclusive, but rather work in concert to facilitate the integration, retention, and retrieval of information from long texts.
3.1 Structured Schemata
In line with Piaget's Constructivist Theory, the memory system should actively restructure all received information into hierarchical schemata from the bottom up. Formally, given a set of input information units (e.g., raw text chunks) V = (11, u ", memory first perceives the underlying associations (38 among these basic units to build a foundational semantic network Go = (V, E). where the set of edges capturing the semantic coherence of unit nodes. Closely related units are then aggregated into higher-level supernodes, forming a coarse network that represents the abstractive understandings. Further aggregation of the abstractions recursively constructs such a hierarchy of memory schemata:
M ((G { (
(1)
where G = (Vi Ej) represents the graph at level I, with Vi and E, being the set of nodes and edges, respectively; 2/1 G.-1 G is the upward mapping that reflects the affiliation of low-level elements in G to high-level abstractions in Gj. This hierarchical structurality is crucial as it naturally enables the seamless integration of abstract concepts and granular details, fostering a cohesive framework for deep comprehension and accurate recall of complex information. The construction of M are driven by two primary cognitive processes: assimilation and accommodation. They form the basis for how information is incorporated into memory structure and how the structure adapts to ensure coherence.
3

---

Memory Develupment: Incrementul Overlapping Chastering Algurithm
Memury Retrievul
New Nose
Flexibilit
Dynumiistty
Query-
New Nodes
(n) Foundational Network Expansion
(h) EentCentric Dieentanglemen
(c) Online Clostering Updates
(d) Adaptive Prune-and--oe and-Grew
Figure 2: The memory development (Section 4.1 and retrieval (Section 4.2)
processes of CAM.
3.2 Flexible Assimilation
Assimilation refers to the process of fitting information into the memory schemata without drastically altering its structure. Formally, given a batch of new information units Vnew {Un++1, (I++1..... +n-++mm the memory system first organizes these units into the foundational semantic network Go. updating to G6 = (V U Vnew, E U Enew), ) where Enew is the set of associative edges between the units and current nodes, as well as among the new units themselves. This step ensures that the foundational network remains comprehensive representation of the semantic landscape for all input information.
On top of Gh the next critical step of assimilation is to establish the hierarchical affiliations of each newly added node &new Vnew-- Specifically, the memory system associates Unew with the high-level abstractions in G, by determining the upward mapping 1i (Unew). ). This mapping can either assign each node to existing abstractions (i.e., th (Unew) C Vi) to enrich their semantic scope, create entirely new abstraction nodes into Gi to trigger further assimilation at higher levels of memory.
The key feature of assimilation lies in its flexibility, allowing each lower-level information unit to simultancously enrich multiple higher-level abstractions, i.c., 1o should be a many-to ma-m mapping. By enabling such overlapping affiliations, the memory schemata can capture the multifaceted nature of complex input information, where a single unit may relate to multiple themes, topies, or concepts.
3.3 Dynamic Accommodation
During assimilation, the memory schemata incrementally expand with the integration of new nodes and edges. Such expansions, however, may render the memory hierarchy suboptimal or misaligned with the updated context. For instance, an abstraction node may become overloaded, compromising its effectiveness in representing its subordinate units. In response, accommodation involves altering affected parts of the hierarchy, redistributing subordinate units and recalibrating abstraction nodes to restore structural coherence and cognitive equilibration. This dynamic process maintains balanced memory schemata, efficiently adapting to new information without the need for global restructuring.
This trait of memory is particularly vital for processing long-form documents in real-world scenarios, where texts may arrive incrementally (e.g.. in streaming or batch settings). For example, when a new chapter of a book is introduced, the memory system should integrate it by refining only the relevant parts of the schemata- such as updating a high-level abstraction representing the book's 's overarching marrative-rather than rebuilding the entire hierarchy from scratch. This capability ensures scalability and efficiency, as the memory system can adapt to new inputs in continuous, online manner.
Prototype: Constructivist Agentic Memory
Based the above blueprint, then develop a prototype of Constructivist Agentic Memory (CAM) for LLLM-based reading comprehension over long-form documents. This framework, illustrated in Figure 2 embodies the structurality, flexibility, and dynamicity in the construction of reading memory (Section 4.1. and adopts an adaptive inference strategy to handle user queries (Section
4.1 Memory Development
In the reading phase, CAM is expected to flexibly assimilate and dynamically accommodate the input texts within a coherent hierarchy. Our technical implementation draws upon two observations. First, the flexible assimilation aligns well with overlapping clustering, where closely related memory nodes

---

form clusters and each node can belong to multiple clusters. Meanwhile, the dynamic accommodation corresponds to incremental clustering, where the cluster structures evolve in response to new inputs. These two cognitive processes are intertwined rather than independent, suggesting that compact, unified algorithmic design integrating both functionalities would be preferable. Thus, we empower CAM with an incremental overlapping clustering algorithm for memory development, ensuring both simplicity and efficiency. Specifically, our procedure comprises three primary steps:
1. Foundational Network Expansion: New text chunks Vnew are integrated into the foundational semantic network Go = EV) (initially empty), with the new edges Enew established based on textual relevance and narrative coherence.
2. Ego-Centric Disentanglement: For the affected nodes A (new nodes and their neighbor nodes), CAM analyzes their local structures update the replica network Go (initially empty) of Go. which explicitly disentangles the overlapping clusters through node replication.
3. Online Clustering Updates:
On the non-overlapping replica network Go. an incremental label propagation algorithm is applied to modify the cluster assignment. For modified clusters, CAM then updates the abstraction nodes using LLMs, and the affected supemoods further trigger this procedure (Step 2 and Step 3) at the next level.
In the following, we elaborate on these three steps in detail. For clarity, we focus on the development process from the foundational Go to the next G1, which can be naturally extended to higher layers.
4.1.1 Foundational Network Expansion
Given m new contiguous text chunks Vnew = (Vn+11, Un+42 ...; Un }. CAM first incorporates these information units into the foundational semantic network Go =V; (V, E), laying the groundwork for subsequent hierarchical development. To capture the textual relevance and narrative coherence among the received chunks, we define composite score function that integrates both semantic similarity and positional proximity. Formally, for each pair of chunks 1. E Vnew and 0j E V U Vnew. the semantic similarity is computed as the cosine similarity between their embeddings produced by pretrained model f.mo(.). In addition, we measure the positional proximity between v; and v using Gaussian similarity, which assigns higher scores to chunks that are closer in position. Combining these two aspects, the overall similarity score defined as their linear interpolation:
(ei) Semss s( s(e;, 13) = [[ (2:) felb [1))]]
(- (i (i-j)² j)²
+ (1 - a). exp
20
where a E [0, 1] is the weighting coefficient, i and j are positional indices Us and vy, respectively, and a controls the decay rate of proximity influence. For each received chunk, we identify the top-k relevant nodes whose similarity scores exceed a predefined threshold 0, and then establish new edges between them to form the expanded foundational graph Gy = (V', E²) = (V U Vnews E U Enew).
4.1.2 Ego-Centric Disentanglement
Memory assimilation allows each lower-level unit to simultaneously contribute to multiple higher- level abstractions. CAM achieves such flexibility through an ego-centric disentanglement strategy, which separates the contributions of each node by replicating it based on its local structures.
For every node a E V in Go. CAM first extracts its ego-network Go [V()), which is the subgraph
consisting of the neighbor nodes of and the edges among them 33 40
From this local perspective,
CAM then partitions Go [N(()) into connected components {C,,
u CP Cte J. where t, denotes
the number of components in the ego-network of v. These components reflect the multifaceted roles of node v which acts as the local cut point bridging otherwise disconnected contexts. To explicitly model such roles, l, replicas of are created, denoted as (u), v² ,.., ...,,,") J. each exclusively associated with one connected component. Let V denote the set of replicas of all nodes in Go. every original edge is also mapped to the connection between the replicas of its endpoints: if (u, v) E E, u uuu C₁2 and u E Ci then an edge (u:, M)) is added to É. The resulting network Go (V, E) effectively disentangles the overlapping structures through node replication 44), thus allowing information to be summarized into multiple abstractions even with simple non-overlapping clustering algorithms.
Note that the eeo-newwork of does not include the node itself in this context 39
5

---

Notably, this disentanglement process is naturally suitable for dynamic settings, When set of new nodes Vew and corresponding edges Enow are integrated into Go (as described in Section 4.1.Ip. CAM only needs to construct or update the replicas of the affected nodes A View U {u E V E Vnese (u, v) E Fnee without the need for a full reconstruction. Moreover, since all nodes focus solely on their respective ego-networks, the replication of multiple nodes is inherently parallelizable
4.1.3 Online Clustering Updates
On the replica network Go. CAM then employs an incremental label propagation algorithm for online clustering updates. This procedure operates locally over a subgraph of Go. thereby enabling efficient adaptation to new received information. Specifically, when a set of replicas is assimilated into Go (as described in Section 4.1.2) CAM first tracks all affected nodes A, including the newly added replicas and the existing replicas whose neighborhoods have changed. The new replica nodes are initialized with unique cluster labels, while the existing ones retain their previous labels. Then, CAM performs
label propagation within the induced subgraph of A, where the label of each node v E Á is iteratively updated according to the majority label among its neighbors (u)). If an existing node's 's cluster label changes, all its neighbors are added to Á for the next round of updates, ensuring that potential ripple effects are fully captured. This process continues recursively until no further label changes occur or a predefined iteration limit is reached. Note that we adopt such an algorithm for its scalability [41] and other incremental strategies [2 could also be used in this step depending on specific requirements.
Once the clustering process converges, CAM aggregates the nodes in each modified cluster to update their corresponding abstraction nodes in the next memory layer. This aggregation transforms tightly connected text chunks into compact, coherent summaries through LLM-based textual summarization. The resulting supernodes and their inter-cluster connections are then incorporated into the higher-level memory network as new nodes and edges, triggering further development of the memory hierarchy.
4.2 Memory Retrieval
Once the memory structure is constructed, another critical issue for reading agents is how to retrieve relevant information from the memory in response to user queries. Existing methods typically adopts two common strategies: hierarchical traversal [14] 335 and global retrieval 14] 18 30 (Appendix [B). However, they both have inherent limitations. Hierarchical traversal compares the input query to only a subset of nodes in each memory layer, making it prone to missing relevant information, especially in lower layers (14. Global retrieval, while enabling comparisons across all nodes, simply relies on one-time semantic matching and overlooks the associated memory structures.
In this work, we empower CAM with associative retrieval strategy, which first rapidly locates query- related cues from a global view, and then performs recursive associations along the memory structure. Specifically, our strategy proceeds in two stages:
1. Fast Localization: For an input query q, CAM first calculates the cosine similarity between the query embedding (q) and the embedding of each memory node f1). The top-s nodes with the highest similarity scores are selected form a candidate set D. This stage mirrors the human cognitive process of rapidly pinpointing relevant memory fragments during recall.
2. Associative Exploration: Then, CAM uses LLM to select nodes from D) that are helpful for answering the query, forming an activation set P C D. Subsequently, the same-layer neighbors and lower-layer children of all activated nodes are collected into a new candidate set, from which the LLM continues to select potentially useful nodes to expand the activation set P. This process repeats until P no longer grows maximum number of iterations is reached. Finally, all activated nodes are fed into the LLM for inference, akin to human associative thinking.
This Prune-and-Gren workflow combines global semantic matching and local structural exploration, enabling the LIM to adaptively gather query-relevant memories as support for contextual inference.
Experiments
To comprehensively validate the effectiveness of our CAM framework, we evaluate its performance on a range of single- and multi-document reading comprehension tasks, including question answering, query-bascr summarization, and claim verification. In the main experiment (Section 5.2). we adopt an

---

Table 2: Reading comprehension results. ACC-L is the accuracy score from the LLM judge. R-1 and R-L are ROUGE F-Measures. The best results are in bold, and the second best results are underlined. Note that FullContext is inherently not suitable for the multi-document scenarios.
Single-Document Scenarios
Molti-Doemment Scenarios
NovelQA
QMSum
FABLES
MH-RAG
ODSun--tory
ODSum-Meeting
Methods
R-1
R.L.
ACC-L.
R-1
R-L.
ACC-L
Flp
Fly
EM
FI
R-1
R.L.
ACC-L
R-1
R-L.
ACC-L
FullContest
19.5
17.2
38.2
26.3
17.5
15.2
79.5
39.1
MemGPT
II
21.3
19.5
40.8
31.4
20.2
40.3
81.3
38.5
63.2
67.1
32.6
18.4
36.8
28.5
16.5
33.2
ReadAgent
13
22.1
20.4
42.3
32,9
23.6
45,5
84.2
43.6
60.8
65.5
33,5
19:0
39.4
28.8
16.3
35.7
RAPTOR 14
26.5
23.7
47.8
34.2
24.5
50.7
48.5
69.4
73.6
37.4
24.0
48.7
32.6
19.9
44.3
GrapbRAG
15
24,8
22.5
45.3
35.8
25.2
53,9
87.2
48.0
65.2
70.3
37.2
24.3
50.2
33.7
20.5
45.8
HippoRAG
16
25.5
23.0
46.5
31.9
20.8
41.2
84.7
45.8
67.9
72.5
34.5
22.8
42.9
30.2
18.3
41.2
MemTree
[8]
23.4
21.2
43.5
33.7
22.9
48.3
83.1
46.6
66.5
71.2
35.2
23.2
46.0
31,8
19.5
42.5
CAM
28.8
25.4
52.3
37.2
26.5
57.6
91.5
52.5
72.8
77.5
39.2
25.5
54.6
35.9
23.2
50.7
(56)
+2.3
+1.7
+1.4
+1.3
+3.7
+4.0
+3.4
+1.8
+1.2
+2.2
+4.9
offline setting, allowing CAM to access all texts at once to build the memory. Then, we demonstrate the dynamicity of CAM under batch-level online setting (Section (5.3). where CAM accesses the texts in batches. More analysis of configurations and variants is provided in Section
5.1 Experimental Setup
Datasets For single-document scenarios, we use NovelQA (question answering) 43 QMSum (summarization) [44), and FABLES (claim verification) (45). For multi-document scenarios, we evaluate on MultiHop-RAG (question answering) [46], ODSum-Story (summarization) [47). and ODSum-Mess Meeting (summarization) [4)] We select these datasets for their high quality, diversity, and
long-text characteristics. See Appendix C for more details and statistics. We also demonstrate CAM's effectiveness on more classic datasets, with details provided in Appendix due to space constraints.
Baselines We compare CAM with two categories of baselines: (1) non-structured memory, includ- ing FullContext (a naive baseline that feeds full documents with truncation), MemGPT [1, and ReadAgent [13;; (2) structured baselines, including RAPTOR 14) GraphR [15), HippoRAAG
[16, and MemTree [8]. More descriptions of these baselines are provided in Appendix
Metries Considering the free-form reference responses in NovelQA, QMSum, and ODSum datasets, we report two widely-used metrics [3 14 18 ROUGE F-Measures 48 for lexical similarity and
LLM--s---judge' Accuracy (ACC-L) from GPT-40 [4]. For MultiHop RAG (MH-RAG) with defimite short reference answers, we report the exact match (EM) and Fl scores. For FABLES, we follow its original paper 45 to report the separate Fl scores for positive and negative labels, i.c., Flp and FIN-
the LLM backbone and text- seeet--emeddinng---e --maingg--smmall as the embedding model femb. For fair comparisons, we standardize the use of LLMs and embedding models across all approaches ensure that the observed performance differences are attributed to the memory design, rather than the variations in the LLMs or embeddings. More implementation details
Implementation Details Unless otherwise specified, use GPT-40-mint
The project code is available at
can be found in Appendix E
5.2 Offline Performance Comparison
Table presents the main results the six reading comprehension benchmarks. One observe that CAM consistently outperforms the baselines across all metrics over these datasets. More insightfully, these results align well with the constructivist design principle in terms of structurality and fiexibility.
Memory Structurality Structured memory approaches (c.g., RAPTOR, GraphRAG, and our CAM) demonstrate clearly stronger performance against those without explicit structures (c.g., ReadAgent and McmGPT), confirming the importance of memory structurality in reading comprehension tasks. Hierarchical structures particularly effective for summarization datasets (QMSum and ODSum), as evidenced by the superior results of RAPTOR, GraphRAG, and MemTree over the non- non-hierarchical HippoRAG. Notably, LLM--drven knowledge graph modeling in GraphRAG and HippoRAG does not bring consistent gains compared to RAPTOR, likely due to difficulty in extracting informative entities from carrative-centric texts. More analysis provided in Section 5.4 and Appendix G
Assimilation Flexibility Despite both employing the tree-like memory structure and global retrieval, RAPTOR consistently surpasses MemTree across all datasets. This performance gap (averaging 2. 2.
7

---

Batch Insertion Time (hours)
2.5
GruphRAG (Oiliin)
57
RAFTOR (Averae))
RAPTOR (Otlline)
MenTra: (Aszzage)
CAM (Offinn)
CAM (NovelQA)
2.0
MenTree (Onlise)
CAM (ODSum
CAM (Culine)
(ODSum=M)
1.5
ACC-L
51
0.5
0.3h
45
42
100
200
300
500
200
300
400
500
Online Batch Size
Online Batch Size
(a) Average Insertion Time vs. Online Batch Size
(b) ACC-L Performance vs. Online Batch Size
Figure 3: CAM's advantages in insertion efficiency and performance stability under the online setting.
on all metrics) directly stems from their difference in assimilation flexibility: RAPTOR permits each node to participate in multiple summaries, while Mem'Tree enforces strict hierarchical containment. This comparison confirms that flexible assimilation is crucial for effective long-text comprchension.
Memory Retrieval We also notice the performance variations between RAPTOR and GraphRAG on different tasks, underscoring the impact of memory retrieval strategies on the overall performance. RAPTOR's global retrieval is suitable for question answering, while GraphRAG integrates all memory nodes to respond, making it more advantageous in the comprehensive summarization tasks.
CAM's Holistic Advantages Following the constructivist design principle, our CAM framework embodies both structurality and flexibility, with an adaptive prune-and-grov strategy to explore the memory hierarchy. In this way, CAM is not only suitable for the question answering tasks but also demonstrates significant advantages over the summarization tasks. Specifically, our CAM consistently achieves superior performance on all datasets, delivering an average gain of 3.0% across all metries compared to the best baselines (RAPTOR and GraphRAG), Furthermore, we would like to highlight another unique advantage of CAM in the next part: its applicability to the batch-level online setting.
5.3 Dynamicity of CAM: From Offline Online
Real-world application scenarios (e.g., reading serialized novels tracking real-time news) typically require the memory systems to continuously integrate new texts in batches while maintaining stability, Existing offline methods (c.g., RAPTOR and GraphRAG) inherently demand full memory reconstruc- tion for each update. Mem though online, only allows sequential, chunk-by-on -hynkkkb-hhukkk integration. Unlike them, CAM naturally supports batch-level assimilation and local-first accommodation, thereby ensuring both processing efficiency and inference stability of the online memory development.
Processing Efficiency Figure (()) shows the average integration time for a new batch of text chunks (each chunk contains 512 tokens) for different memory methods. Offline RAPTOR and GraphRAG require over hour to rebuild entire memories, making them unsuitable for real-time use. Mem'Tree, due to its sequential processing nature, incurs linearly increasing time with the batch size, even slower than offline reconstruction when the new batch exceeds 400 chunks. In contrast, our CAM maintains efficient integration across all batch sizes based on its parallelizable assimilation and localized accom- modation processes. As the batch size increases, CAM's time cost grows sublinearly, approaching its offline level (4 faster than RAPTOR and GraphRAG), with LLM operations as the main overhead. Such time convergence is reasonable, since large batches require substantial memory adjustment.
shows
Inference Stability Figure ((b) reports the ACC-L results of CAM across different batch sizes on NovelQA, ODSum-Store Story, and ODSum-Meetine
The performance of online CAM remains relatively stable across different batch sizes, and continues to be competitive against the baselines in Table 2 This indicates that CAM is able to effectively adjust its memory structure accommodate new texts.
To conclude, CAM provides an efficient and reliable solution for long-context reading comprehension in online scenarios. The designed assimilation and accommodation processes effectively address the critical demands of processing efficiency and inference stability, establishing CAM as the first agentic memory framework that simultaneously possesses structurality, flexibility, and dynamicity. We use these datasets they contain extremely long documents (Appendix C and share the same metrics.

---

Table 3: Dissecting CAM with different configurations (rows 2-5) and variants (rows 6-10).
NovelQA
QMSum
MH-RAG
ODSam-8
R-1.
ACC-L.
R-1.
ACC-L.
FM
ACC-L
CAM with GPT-4o-mini and text-embeddingg--aeeee
25.4
52.3
26.5
57.6
72.8
77.5
25.5
54.6
LLM Backbones
Llama-3.1-3 1-Sttuuttt
23.7
49.5
25.3
54.4
70,3
74.2
24.3
52.5
Qwen2.55 7B- Instruct
24.1
50.6
25.5
55.0
70.9
75.6
24.2
53.2
Embedding Models
E5-Mistral-7BB Insstructt
eextemmbedding-2-lage
25.8
26.4
54.3
53.0
27.1
27.4
58.7
59.2
73.5
73.2
78.4
78.0
26.3
26.7
55.7
56.4
Hierarchical Traversal
23.2
46.5
24.8
55.2
68.3
72.5
23.8
49.5
Retrieval Strategy
Global Retrieval
24.5
50.3
25.7
56.3
70.5
75.9
24.4
50.8
Fine Grained Modeling
25.8
53.5
26.3
57.2
76.8
54.8
Variants
w/o Hierarchy
22.9
46.7
23.2
46.6
68.5
73.4
23.5
49.3
w/o Flexibility
24.2
50.3
24.7
51.5
70.3
75.1
24.7
51.2
5.4 More Analysis: Configurations and Variants
LLM Backbones To assess whether CAM's performance relies on commercial LLMs like GPT-4o- mini, we replace it with two popular open-source LLMs: Llama-3.1 1.-ma-3.1-8B--- -.st-ruttttt and Qwen2.5-7B- Instruct. As shown in Table 3 (rows 2-3), despite their relatively smaller parameter scales, the CAM implementations based on these two LLMs still deliver strong performance, with only a slight drop compared to the GPT-4o-mini version (row 1). This suggests that CAM's s core strengths primarily stem from the effective memory design, rather than relying on the expensive LLM backbones.
Embedding Models We further study the impact of embedding models on our CAM's performance. Beyond the default text-embedding---smaal we employ (ext-embedding---Be
and E5-Mistral-77B
Instruct, two stronger embedding models on the MTEB leaderboard (50) Table 3 (rows 4-5) shows that the use of more advanced embedding models can improve the performance of CAM, since they deliver more accurate similarity measurements for the construction of memory foundational networks.
Retrieval Strategies Table 3 (rows 6-7) reports the results of CAM under different memory retrieval strategies. We observe that using either hierarchical traversal or global retrieval leads to performance degradation, validating the effectiveness of our Prune-and- -rrwrr strategy. Notably, CAM centers on the memory development process and is thus inherently compatible with diverse retrieval strategies, allowing users to select the suitable one based their specific needs in real-world applications (51).
Performance by Question Type To further investigate how CAM performs across varying question characteristics, we conduct an in-depth performance analysis on the NovelQA dataset by leveraging its available question-type annotations. Specifically, the questions are categorized along two orthogonal axes (i.e., complexity-busee based and sspect-based categories) to reflect their reasoning complexity and semantic focus. Detailed results are provided Appendix [ We observe that CAM exhibits clear advantages in handling the complex questions (e.g., multi- hhop times, and span types), which typically require integrating semantically distant evidence and maintaining narrative coherence.
Fine-Graines Foundational Modeling Several recent works (e.g., GraphRAG and HippoRAG) employs LLMS to construct knowledge graph from input texts (i.e., entity recognition and relation extraction). Such fine-grained knowledge modeling can be readily integrated into CAM for building a more granular foundational network. However, this process would increase the computational cost by more than threcfold due to the extensive LLM invocations, yet it does not achieve commensurate improvements as shown in Table 3 (row 8). We observe that even commercial LLMs (GPT-40-mini) struggle to extract informative entities from lengthy narratives. See Appendix G for more analysis.
Ablation Variants Table (rows 9-10) presents the performance of two ablation variants of CAM. One variant omits hierarchical clustering entirely, relying solely on the foundational semantic network for inference; while the other bypasses the ego-centric disentanglement and directly applies the label propagation for hierarchical clustering. One can see that both variants result in clear performance degradation, thereby confirming the importance of hierarchy and flexibility in our design principle.
Limitations and Discussion
Beyond Reading Comprehension While constructivist theory offers broad insights into cognitive development, our work is tailored specifically to long-text reading comprehension tasks, such as question answering, query-based summarization, and claim verification. Extending such a profound

---

memory design principle to other domains. such as behavioral planning, long sequence generation, and multi-modis tasks, remains unexplored but holds significant potential for future investigation.
More Agentic Rehaviors This work primarily focuses on delineating the key traits of agentic memory and develops prototype validate the importance of these traits. However, additional agentic behaviors, such as self-questioning and reflection, are not incorporated into our framework. Integrating these capabilities could be crucial for advancing more robust LLM-based agent systems.
Hallucination Propagation CAM leverages LLMs for summarization during memory development, posing the risk of hallucination generating inaccurate or fabricated information. As CAM generates hierarchical summaries, errors or hallucinations in lower-level nodes may propagate to higher- level abstractions, potentially affecting the applicability of our framework in real-world scenarios. Detecting and mitigating such hallucinations within the agentic memory remains an open challenge.
Inconsistent Information Sources The ability to detect and reconcile contradictory information is a critical aspect of human cognition. In line with prior L.LM-based memory systems (e.g. GraphRAG, RAPTOR, and MemTree), our framework also assumes that the source texts are internally consistent. However, real-world documents often contain conflicting facts or perspectives, especially in complex open-domain settings, Addressing this challenge requires dedicated efforts, such as constructing new benchmarks and designing evaluation protocols to measure the reconciliation capabilities. We consider the inconsistency- aware memory development as a promising direction for future research.
Alternative Implementations CAM instantiates the constructivist design principle with a local-first incremental overlapping clustering algorithm. While this implementation fulfills the desired properties (i.e., structured schemata, flexible assimilation, and dynamic accommodation), it is not the only path toward such goals. Other strategies (e.g., neural controllers and symbolic planners) may offer different trade-offss in scalability, interpretability, and generalizability. Exploring alternative implementations that adhere to the constructivist principle could further enrich the landscape of memory systems.
Learn to Memorize Our CAM implementation relies on fixed prompts and tuned hyperparameters rather than adaptive policies for memory assimilation and accommodation. It neither optimizes the memory structure nor adapts its update rules from downstream feedback. Moving toward trainable memory controllers (c.g., learning what to update or how to route retrieval) could further enhance the quality and efficiency of memory development. Designing such mechanisms poses non-trivial challenges in credit assignment, but marks key step toward more powerful agentic memory systems.
7
Conclusion
This paper focuses on an emerging problem: how to design the memory modules for LLMs to build reading agents capable of comprehending extremely long- form documents. To address this, draw upon Jean Piaget's 's Constructivist Theory, positing that an effective memory module should possess structured schemata, flexible assimilation, and dynamic accommodation. Building this blueprint, we develop prototype of Constructivist Agentic Memory (CAM), which shows dual advantages in both performance and efficiency across wide range of long-text reading comprehension benchmarks. We hope that our proposal will inspire broader exploration of cognitive memory architectures to build more powerful LLM agents. Moreover, we believe that the constructivist design principle also offers a compelling foundation for advancing agentic memory beyond textual understanding, with potential applications in planning, reasoning, and multi-modal domains.
Acknowledgments and Disclosure of Funding
This work is supported in part by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 62422215 and No. 62472427), Major Innovation & Planning Interdisciplinary Platform for the "DoubleFirst Class" Initiative, Renmin University of China, Public Computing Cloud, Renmin University of China, fund for building world-class universities (disciplines) of Renmin University of China, the Outstanding Innovative Talents Cultivation Funded Programs 2024 of Renmin University of China, and Huawei Innovation Research Programs. We gratefully acknowledge the support from Mindspor CANN (Compute Architecture for Neural Networks) and Ascend AI Processor used for this research.
httpps///we www.mmoroddd...m
10

---

References
[1] Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, Sandhini Agarwal, Ariel Herbert- Gretchen Krueger, Tom Henighan, Rewon Child, Aditya Ramesh, Daniel Ziegler, Jeffrey Wu, Clemens Winter, Chris Hesse, Mark Chen, Eric Sigler, Mateusz Litwin, Scott Gray, Benjamin Chess, Jack Clark, Christopher Berner, Sam McCandlish, Alec Radford, llya Sutskever, and Dario Amodei. Language models are few-shot learners. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33. pages 1877-1901, 2020.
[2] Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, Parker Schuh, Kensen Shi, Sasha Tsvyashchenko, Joshua Maynez, Abhishek Rao, Parker Barnes, Yi Tay, Noam Shazeer, Vinodkumar Prabhakaran, Emily Reif, Nan Du, Ben Hutchinson, Reiner Pope, James Bradbury. Jacob Austin, Michael Isard, Guy Gur-Ari, Pengcheng Yin, Toju Duke, Anselm Levskaya, Sanjay Ghemawat, Sunipa Dev, Henryk Michalewski, Xavier Garcia, Vedant Misra, Kevin Robinson, Liam Fedus, Denny Zhou, Daphne Ippolito, David Luan, Hyeontaek Lim, Barret Zoph, Alexander Spiridonov, Ryan Sepassi, David Dohan, Shivani Agrawal, Mark Omernick, Andrew M. Dai, Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai, Marie Pellat, Aitor Lewkowycz, Erica Moreira, Rewon Child, Oleksandr Polozov, Katherine Lee, Zongwei Zhou, Xuezhi Wang, Brennan Sacta, Mark Diaz, Orhan Firat, Michele Catasta, Jason Wei, Kathy Meier-Hellstern, Douglas Eck, Jeff Dean, Slav Petrov, and Noah Fiedel. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 24:240:1-240:155 2023.
[3] Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Albert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaci, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, et al. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288, 2023.
[4] Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, al. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21778: 2024.
[5] Nelson Liu, Kevin Lin, John Hewitt, Ashwin Paranjape, Michele Bevilacqua, Fabio Petroni, and Percy Liang. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguistics, 12:157-173, 2024.
[6] Freda Shi, Xinyun Chen, Kanishka Misra, Nathan Scales, David Dohan, Ed H. Chi, Nathanael Schärli, and Denny Zhou. Large language models can be easily distracted by irrleevant context. In International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202, pages 31210-31227, 2023.
[7] Tianle Li, Ge Zhang, Quy Due Do, Xiang Yue, and Wenhu Chen. Long-context Ilms struggle with long in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02000 2024.
[8] Runchu Tian, Yanghao Li, Yuepeng Fu, Siyang Deng, Qinyu Luo, Cheng Qian, Shuo Wang, Xin Cong, Zhong Zhang, Yesai Wu, Yankai Lin, Huadong Wang, and Xiaojiang Liu. Distance between relevant information pieces causes bias in long-context 1lms. CoRR, 144444, 2024.
[9] Zeyu Zhang, Xiaohe Bo, Chen Ma, Rui Li, Xu Chen, Quanyu Dai, Jieming Zhu, Zhenhua Dong, and Ji-Rong Wen. A survey the memory mechanism of large language model based agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404. 13501, 2024.
[10] Joon Sung Park, Joseph O' O'Brien, Carrie Jun Cai, Meredith Ringel Morris, Percy Liang, and Michael S Bernstein. Generative agents: Interactive simulacra of human behavior. In Proceed- ings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages 1-22, 2023.
[11] Charles Packer, Vivian Fang, Shishir G Patil, Kevin Lin, Sarah Wooders, and Joseph E Gonzalez. Memgpt: Towards Iims operating systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.08560, 2023.
[12] Wanjun Zhong, Lianghong Guo, Qiqi Gao, He Ye, and Yanlin Wang. Memorybank: Enhancing large language models with long-term memory. In Thirty-Figtth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 19724-19731, 2024.
11

---

[13] Kuang-Huei Lee, Xinyun Chen, Hiroki Furuta, John Canny, and Ian Fischer. A numan-inspire reading agent with gist memory of very long contexts. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 26396-26415. PMLR, 2024.
[14] Parth Sarthi, Salman Abdullah, Aditi Tuli, Shubh Khanna, Anna Goldie, and Christopher I) Manning. Raptor: Recursive abstractive processing for tree-organized retrieval. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
[15] Darren Edge, Ha Trinh, Newman Cheng, Joshua Bradley, Alex Chao, Apurva Mody, Steven Truitt, and Jonathan Larson. From local to global: A graph rag approach to query-focused summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404. /6/30, 2024.
[16] Bernal Jimenez Gutierrez, Yiheng Shu, Yu Gu, Michihiro Yasunaga, and Yu Su. HippoR Neurobiologically inspired long-term memory for large language models. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024.
[17] Haoyu Han, Yu Wang, Harry Shomer, Kai Guo, Jiayuan Ding, Yongjia Lei, Mahantesh Halap- panavar, Ryan Rossi, Subhabrata Mukherjee, Xianfeng Tang, et al. Retrieval-augmentee generation with graphs (graphrag). arXiv preprint Stti::2501.000 2024.
[18] Alireza Rezazadeh, Zichao Li, Wei Wei, and Yujia Bao. From isolated conversations to hierarchical schemas: Dynamic memory representation for LLMs. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025.
[19] Jean Piaget. Piaget's 's theory. Springer, 1976.
[20] Jean Piaget. The psychology of intelligence. Routledge, 2005.
[21] Sandra Waite- Stapee-tupiankk. Jean piaget's constructivist theory of learning. In Theories of early childhood education, pages 3-18. Routledge, 2022.
[22] Jean Piaget. Piaget's 's theory of cognitive development. Childhood cognitive development: The essential readings, 2(7))33-47, 2000.
[23] Kathleen Stassen Berger. The developing person through the life span. ed. New York: Worth, 1994.
[24] Yukang Chen, Shengju Qian, Haotian Tang. Xin Lai, Zhijian Liu, Song Han, and Jiaya Jia. Longlora: Efficient fine-tuning of long-context large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309. 12307, 2023.
[25] Iz Beltagy, Matthew E Peters, and Arman Cohan. Longformer: The long-document transformer. arXiv preprint 20X5v:2004.05/500 2020.
[26] Manzil Zaheer, Guru Guruganesh, Kumar Avinava Dubey, Joshua Ainslie, Chris Alberti, Santiago Ontanon, Philip Pham, Anirudh Ravula, Qifan Wang, Li Yang, and Amr Ahmed. Big bird: Transformers for longer sequences. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 17283-17297. 2020.
[27] Mandy Guo, Joshua Ainslie, David C. Uthus, Santiago Ontañón, Jianmo Ni, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Yinfei Yang. Longt5: Efficient text-to-text transformer for long sequences. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2022, pages 724-736, 2022.
[28] Joshua Ainslie, Tao Lei, Michiel de Jong, Santiago Ontañón, Siddhartha Brahma, Yury Zemlyan- skiy, David C. Uthus, Mandy Guo, James Lee-Thorp. Yi Tay, Yun-Hsuan Sung, and Sumit Sanghai. Colt5: Faster long-range transformers with conditional computation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods Natural Language Processing, pages 5085-5100, 2023.
[29] Yi Tay, Mostafa Dehghani, Dara Bahri, and Donald Metzler. Efficient transformers: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(6):1-28, 2022.
12

---

[30] Patrick S. H. Lewis. Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. Retrieval-augmente generation for knowledge-intensive NL.P tasks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020.
[31] Peng Xu, Wei Ping. Xianchao Wu, Lawrence McAfee, Chen Zhu, Zihan Liu, Sandeep Subrama- nian, Evelina Bakhturina, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catanzaro. Retrieval meets long context large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:23 10.03025, 2023.
[32] Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval -aggmeene generation for large language models: survey. arXiv preprint arXiv: 10997, 2023.
[33] Ali Modarressi, Abdullatif Köksal, Ayyoob Imani, Mohsen Fayyaz, and Hinrich Schütze. Mem- Ilm: Finetuning Ilms to use an explicit read-write memory. arXiv preprint arXtv:2404.11672 2024.
[34] Bing Wang, Xinnian Liang, Jian Yang, Hui Huang, Shuangzhi Wu, Peihao Wu, Lu Lu, Zejun Ma, and Zhoujun Li. Enhancing large language model with self-controlled memory framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13344 13343, 2023.
[35] Howard Chen, Ramakanth Pasunura, Jason Weston, and Asli Celikyilmaz. Walking down the memory maze: Beyond context limit through interactive reading. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.05029, 2023.
[36] Shilong Li, Yancheng He, Hangyu Guo, Xingyuan Bu, Ge Bai, Jie Liu, Jiaheng Liu, Xingwei Qu, Yangguang Li, Wanli Ouyang, et al. Graphreader: Building graph-based agent to enhance long-context abilities of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.1453 2024.
[37] Aditya Krishna Menon, Anand Rajagopalan, Baris Sumengen, Gui Citovsky, Qin Cao, and Sanjiv Kumar. Online hierarchical clustering approximations. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.0966 2019.
[38] Javier GoorgeHHltthefff and Alex Arenas. Semantic networks: Structure and dynamics. Entropy, 12(5):1264-131 1302, 2010.
[39] Michele Coscia, Giulio Rossetti, Fosca Giannotti, and Dino Pedreschi. DEMON: local-first discovery method for overlapping communities. In The 18th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 615-623, 2012.
2012
[40] Alessandro Epasto, Silvio Lattanzi, and Renato Paes Leme. Ego-splitting framework: from non- overlapping to overlapping clusters. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 154, 2017.
[41] Jierui Xie, Mingming Chen, and Boleslaw K Szymanski. Labelrankt: Incremental community detection in dynamic networks via label propagation. In Proceedings of the workshop on dynamic networks management and mining, pages 25-32, 2013.
[42] Rui Xu and Donald Wunsch. Survey of clustering algorithms. IEEE Transactions on neural networks, 16(3):645-678, 2005.
[43] Cunxiang Wang, Ruoxi Ning, Boqi Pan, Tonghui Wu, Qipeng Guo, Cheng Deng, Guangsheng Bao, Xiangkun Hu, Zheng Zhang. Qian Wang. and Yue Zhang. NovelQA: Benchmarking question answering on documents exceeding 200k tokens. In The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025.
[44] Ming Zhong, Da Yin, Tao Yu, Ahmad Zaidi, Mutethia Mutuma, Rahul Jha, Ahmed Hassan Awadallah, Asli Celikyilmaz, Yang Liu, Xipeng Qiu, and Dragomir R. Radev. Qmsum: A new benchmark for query- -based multi-domain meeting summarization. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5905-5921, 2021.
13

---

[45] Yekyung Kim, Yapei Chang. Marzena Karpinska, Aparna Garimella, Varun Manjunatha, Kyle Lo, Tanya Goyal, and Mohit lyyer. FABLES: Evaluating faithfulness and content selection in book-length summarization. In First Conference on Language Modeling, 2024.
[46] Yixuan Tang and Yi Yang. Multihop-rag: Benchmarking retrieval-augmenttd generation for multi-hop queries. arXiv preprini arXiv:2401. 15391, 2024.
[47] Yijie Zhou, Kejian Shi, Wencai Zhang, Yixin Liu, Yilun Zhao, and Arman Cohan, Odsum: New benchmarks for open domain multi-document summarization. arXiv preprint arX1v:2309.08900,
2023.
[48] Chwn Lin. Rouge: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pages 74-81, 2004.
[49] Jiawei Gu, Xuhui Jiang, Zhichao Shi, Hexiang Tan, Xuehao Zhai, Chengjin Xu, Wei Li, Yinghan Shen, Shengjie Ma, Honghao Liu, et al. A survey on llm-as-a-judge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.1555 155944 2024.
[50] Kenneth Enevoldsen, Isaac Chung, Imene Kerboua, Márton Kardos, Ashwin Mathur, David Stap, Jay Gala, Wissam Siblini, Dominik Krzemiński,, Genta Indra Winata, Saba Sturua, Saiteja Utpala, Mathieu Ciancone, Marion Schaeffer. Gabriel Sequeira, Diganta Misra, Shreeya Dhakal, Jonathan Rystrøm, Roman Solomatin, Ömer Çağatan, Akash Kundu, Martin Bernstorff, Shitao Xiao, Akshita Sukhlecha, Bhavish Pahwa, Rafal Poświata, Kranthi Kiran GV, Shawon Ashraf, Daniel Auras, Björ Plüster, Jan Philipp Harries, Loic Magne, Isabelle Mohr, Mariya Hendriksen, Dawei Zhu, Hippolyte Gisserot- Boukhlef, Tom Aarsen, Jan Kostkan, Konrad Wojtasik, Taemin Lee, Marek Suppa, Crystina Zhang, Roberta Rocca, Mohammed Hamdy, Andrianos Michail, John Yang, Manuel Faysse, Aleksei Vatolin, Nandan Thakur, Manan Dey, Dipam Vasani, Pranjal Chitale, Simone Tedeschi, Nguyen Tai, Artem Snegirev, Michael Günther, Mengzhou Xia. Weijia Shi, Xing Han Lü, Jordan Clive, Gayatri Krishnakumar, Anna Maksimova, Silvan Wehrli, Maria Tikhonova, Henil Panchal, Aleksandr Abramov, Malte Ostendorff, Zheng Liu, Simon Clematide, Lester James Miranda, Alena Fenogenova, Guangyu Song. Ruqiya Bin Safi, Wen-Ding Li, Alessia Borghini, Federico Cassano, Hongjin Su, Jimmy Lin, Howard Yen, Lasse Hansen, Sara Hooker, Chenghao Xiao, Vaibhav Adlakha, Orion Weller, Siva Reddy, and Niklas Muennighoff. Mmteb: Massive multilingual text embedding benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13522 2025, doi: (0448550/rXxv.2500..533
[51] Gautier Izacard, Mathilde Caron, Lucas Hosseini, Sebastian Riedel, Piotr Bojanowski, Armand Joulin, and Edouard Grave. Unsupervised dense information retrieval with contrastive learning. Transactions on Machine Learning Research, 2022.
[52] Vincent A Traag, Ludo Waltman, and Nees Jan Van Eck. From louvain to leiden: guarantecing well-connected communities. Scientific reports, 91)::1112, 2019.
[53] Ruosen Li and Xinya Du. Leveraging structured information for explainable multi-hop question answering and reasoning. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP, pages -7799 2023.
[54] Yanming Liu, Xinyue Peng, Tianyu Du, Jianwei Yin, Weihao Liu, and Xuhong Zhang. Fra-cot: Improving chain-of -houuhhhht through entity relationship analysis. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 0780-8794, 2024.
[55] Jinyoung Park, Ameen Patel, Omar Zia Khan, Hyunwoo J Kim, and Joo-Kyung Kim. Graph- guided reasoning for multi-hop question answering large language models. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2311.09762 2023.
[56] Xiaoxia Cheng, Zeqi Tan, and Weiming Lu. Information re-organization improves reasoning in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404. 13985, 2024.
[57] Xin Su, Tiep Le, Steven Bethard, and Phillip Howard. Semi-structured chain-of-thought: Integrating multiple sources of knowledge for improved language model reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08505. 2023.
14

---

[58] Jianing Wang, Qiushi Sun, Xiang Li, and Ming Gao. Boosting language models reasoning with khain-of-knowledge prompting. arXiv preprint 2XXiv:2306.06427, 2023.
[59] Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhut- dinov, and Christopher D. Manning. Hotpotqa: A dataset for diverse, explainable multi-hop question answering. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural 2018.
Language Processing, pages
[60] Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Musique: Multihop questions via single-hop question composition. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:539-554, 2022.
[61] Xanh Ho, Anh-Khoa Duong Nguyen, Saku Sugawara, and Akiko Aizawa. Constructing A multi-hop QA dataset for comprehensive evaluation of reasoning steps. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pages 6609-66233 2020.
[62] Harsh Trivedi, Niranjan Balasubramanian, Tushar Khot, and Ashish Sabharwal. Interleaving retrieval with chain-of-thougie reasoning for knowledge-intensive multi-step questions. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume I: Long Papers), pages 10014-10037, 2023.
15

---

A Overview of Jean Piaget's Constructivist Theory
Jean Piaget's Constructivist Theory 21 originally formulated to explain cognitive development in children, offers a valuable framework for understanding how readers comprehend complex texts. This theory emphasizes that reading comprehension is not solely a passive reception of information, but involves an active, constructive process. Central to this process are the concepts of schemata, assimilation, and accommodation, which work together to drive cognitive development.
Schemata Schemata are cognitive structures or mental frameworks that organize and interpret information, serving as the building blocks of cognition. In reading comprehension, this layered organization enables readers to process information at different levels of granularity, from basic word recognition higher-order conceptual analysis. For example, a child's basic schema for "animal" may include broad traits like "moves" or "eats", which later differentiates into more specific schemata for "dog" or "bird". These hierarchical structures provide stability, enabling efficient processing of familiar experiences, while their layered organization supports the integration of increasingly abstract and sophisticated knowledge.
Assimilation Assimilation is the process of integrating new experiences into existing schemata with minimal adjustment. It reflects cognitive flexibility, allowing individuals to apply familiar frameworks to new situations. For example, a child encountering a new breed of dog might assimilate it into their "dog" schema by recognizing shared features like fur or barking. Assimilation is essential for learning, as it builds on the hierarchical structure of schemata, reinforcing and expanding existing knowledge without disrupting cognitive organization. However, when new experiences challenge these frameworks, complementary process is required.
Accommodation Accommodation involves modifying existing schemata or creating new ones to account for experiences that do not fit current frameworks. This dynamic process drives cognitive growth by restructuring the hierarchical organization of schemata to align with reality. For example, if a child mistakes a cat for a dog, they may accommodate by creating new "cat" schema or refining their "dog" schema to exclude cats. Accommodation is vital for resolving cognitive conflicts, enabling the development of more accurate and complex schemata within the hierarchical system.
The Interplay of Assimilation and Accommodation the dynamic interplay between assimilation and accommodation, which maintains cognitive balance. When new experiences cause disequilibrium, individuals use assimilation to incorporate compat- ible information and accommodation to adjust or expand their hierarchical schemata. This cycle drives progression through Piaget's 's stages of development (sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational), as schemata become increasingly differentiated and organized.
Piaget's concept of equilibration describes
In summary, Piaget's constructivist theory emphasizes the hicrarchical organization of schemata as the foundation of knowledge, with flexible assimilation and dynamic accommodation enabling adaptation and growth. These processes work together refine and expand cognitive hierarchies, making Piaget's ' theory a powerful lens for understanding memory development.
B Discussion on Related Works
Table summarizes the traits of current representative memory works from the constructivist per- spective. Here, provide detailed exposition of these methods.
[
Tabular Memory Unstructured methods, such as MemGPT [II] and ReadAgent 13, store or com- press individual text chunks independently into tabular memory. Due to their design simplicity, these methods naturally support batch processing of new texts. However, they disregard the significance of memory structurality, thus rendering discussions of flexibility and dynamicity irrelevant.
This method recognizes the importance of higher-level summarization, adopting a bottom-up clustering and summarization strategy to form hierarchical memory, aligning with the concept of structured schemata. RAPTOR employs a soft clustering approach based on Gaussian Mixture Models, where nodes can belong to multiple clusters without requiring a fixed number of clusters, thereby fulfilling the flexibility memory assimilation. However, the method operates in a fully offline manner, lacking incremental updates to memory, i.e., there is no dynamic accommodation. Moreover, the clustering method relies on Gaussian assumptions, which may not perfectly match the nature of text data, potentially affecting its applicability across different text types.
RAPTOR [14]
16

---

GraphRAG leverages the linguistic capabilities of LLMs to extract fine-grained knowledge triplets from each text chunk and construct knowledge graph. Then, it employs the Leiden algorithm 52 for community detection and generates summaries with L.Mss. This approach satisfies structurality but lacks flexibility, since the Leiden algorithm produces disjoint community structures such that each lower-level node can only belong to a single higher-level node. Moreover, GraphRAG operates in an offline manner, i.c., it needs to rebuild the entire memory when new texts arrive. HippoRAG similarly constructs a knowledge graph memory from long documents but neglects the importance of higher-level semantic summaries. In our experiment, we observe that such finegrainedd knowledge modeling remains challenging for LLMs, primarily due to the difficulty in maintaining the consistency of entities and relations over long texts. Further analysis in Appendix G reveals that such knowledge modeling is more suitable for factual QA than for narrative QA.
GraphRAG [5] and HippoRAG [6
Mem'ree is the first method to consider the online scenarios, employing a top-down hierarchical clustering algorithm for memory development. However, it processes new input texts in chunk-by-chunk manner, with only a single chunk inserted into the memory structure at a time. This design leads to inefficiency when handling large number of chunks, as shown in Figure 3(a) MemTree assigns each chunk to a single position, thereby lacking flexibility. Furthermore, it does not adjust the memory structure to accommodate each new insertion, which may result in an imbalanced memory structure and sensitivity to the order of chunk insertion.
MemTree 18
Other related works Some other studies [53] [6] also leverage structured approaches to enhance LLMs. SG-Prompt [53] first constructs a semantic graph structures through information extraction from all retrieved texts, and then leverages this symbolic information to enhance the inference quality of L.MSs. GE-Reasoning
[S and Strucutruct CoT (57) focus on parsing input questions into masked structured chains and subsequently fill each incomplete knowledge triplet based
pre-defined KG or a plain text database. CoK (58) retrieves knowledge triplets from a pre-defined KG and then combines them with human annotations, aiming to construct rational exemplars to elicit the knowledge generation capabilities of LLMs. Most of these methods can be viewed as variants of GraphRAG, thus we do not include comparisons with them considering the evaluation budget.
In summary, none of these methods simultaneously satisfy the structurality, flexibility, and dynamicity requirements of constructivist theory. Our CAM framework effectively fills this void, offering an efficient and reliable solution for long-context reading comprehension in batch-level online scenarios.
C Dataset Statistics
We evaluate the performance of CAM on a range of single- and multi-document reading comprehen- sion tasks, including question answering, query-based summarization, and claim verification.
For single-document scenarios, dataset, with an average of more than 200K tokens per novel; (2) QMSum [44), query-based multi- domain meeting summarization dataset, with each meeting transcript averaging around 10K words; and (3) FABLES [45), a claim verification dataset that requires the model to judge the faithfulness of given claims on long-form documents, with an average of more than 120K tokens per document.
(1) NovelQA 4
a long-form novel question answering
For multi-document scenarios, we further use (4) MultiHop-RAC [46), a recent nupti-hop question answering dataset spanning corpus of 609 news articles across six categories, with average length of around 2,000 tokens per article; and (5) ODSum [47), a multi-document query-based
summarization dataset consisting of two subsets (ODSum-Story and ODSum-Meeting).
For FABLES and MultiHop-RAG, we filter the unanswerable claims and questions. The statistics of all datasets are provided in Table 4
Table 4: Statistics of six reading comprehesion benchmarks.
Decuuent Reading Comprchension
Multi-Document Reading Comprchension
Dataset Statistics
NovelQA
FABLES
QMSum
MultiHop-RAG
ODSum-Story
ODSum-Meeting
Task
QA
Verification
Summarization
QA
Summarization
Summarization
#Document
89
26
232
609
1190
232
#Token
200K
121K
10K
2046*609
809*1190
7176*232
#Query
2305
3158
1808
2255
635
436
17

---

D Baseline Descriptions
We compare CAM with a range of LLM-based reading comprehension approaches: (1) FullContext. a naive baseline that directly feed full documents into the LLM and truncates any content exceeding the context window; (2) MemGPT TO M., which retrieves query-relevant text chunks directly without formatting high-level representations, (3) ReadAgent [3], which generates summaries for all text chunks to compress the long documents into the LLM's context window; (4) RAPTOR [4]. which recursively builds a tree structure with different levels of summarization; (5) GraphRAG [15] which extracts a knowledge graph from the documents and splits it into independent communities to form summaries; (6) HippoRAG [16], which similarly organizes knowledge graph but lacks high-level abstractions; (7) Mem'reee [88, which sequentially integrates the texts into a tree from the top down and updates the summaries accordingly. More descriptions of these baselines and how they differ from our design are provided in Appendix
E
Implementation Details
Backbone models In our experiments, standardize the use of LLMs and embedding models across all approaches to ensure that the observed performance differences are attributed to the memory design, rather than the variations in LLMs' capabilities or embeddings. By default, GPT-4o-mini with temperature of 0 as the LLM backbone, and employ text Sertt--medddinn--e. -mmmmilaggmmmal as the embedding model femb. Different model configurations are also considered to demonstrate the applicability of our framework.
Hyperparameter Selection Our CAM framework involves several key hyperparameters that control the memory development. We select the weighting coefficient a from {0.5, 0.7, 0.9). the decay rate from {1.0, 1.5, 2.0}. and the similarity threshold 0 from {0.5, 0.7). The chunk size is set to either 256 or 512 tokens, depending on the dataset characteristics. For memory expansion, we set & to 10, and for memory retrieval, set to 5. The temperature of the LLM is set to O. Note that for chunks not within in the same document, the proximity similarity in Equation 2 is O. All LLM prompts are listed in code repository. As discussed in Section O while these hyperparameters are commonly used and empirically effective, they remain manually configured in CAM. A promising direction for future research is to develop automated mechanisms (e.g., reinforcement learning) to reduce reliance on manual tuning and enhance adaptability across diverse tasks.
Memory Scope For single-document reading comprehension datasets (i.e., NovelQA, QMSum, and FABLES), CAM builds an independent memory structure for each document to facilitate reasoning over the entire document. For multi-document reading comprehension datasets (i.e., MultiHop-RAG ODSum-Story Story, and involved documents, enabling CAM to retrieve and integrate information from multiple documents when responding complex queries.
unified memory representation is constructed across all the
Metrics Considering the free-form reference responses in NovelQA, QMSum. and ODSum, we use two widely-used metries for evaluation 13 14 I8] (1) ROUGE F-Measures 48 which capture the lexical similarity between the model output and the reference response; and (2) LLMMas-a-judge 49
which uses GPT-4o to compare the output with the reference, resulting an accuracy score (ACC-L.). For the factual question answering datasets MultiHop-RAAG and HotpotQA, we use exact match (EM) and Fl scores to measure the performance. On the claim verification dataset FABLES, we follow its original paper 45 to report the separate Fl scores for positive and negative labels, i.e., Flp and FIN.
Compute Resource In our analysis experiment (Table 3). We run the open-source LLMs (Llama- 2.1-8B-Instruc and 1amm2.5-7BIIntrruue on an NVIDIA A100 GPU,
F
Performance by Question Type
To provide more nuanced evaluation of CAM, we also conduct a fine- fine-grained performance analysis on the NovelQA dataset by leveraging its question-type annotations. These annotations enable us to investigate model behaviors along two orthogonal axes: (1) complexity-based categories, including single-hop (42.8%). multi-hop (35.0%), and detail (22.2%) questions, which reflect the reasoning depth required to arrive at an answer; and (2) aspect-basee categories, covering times, meaning, span, setting, relation, character, and plot, which reflect the semantic focus of each query.
18

---

Table 5: Evaluation results on complexity- categories.
Methods
Single-Hop
Multi-Hop
Detail
Average
ReadAgent
45.3
39.5
41.0
42.3
RAPTOR
49.1
46.3
47.6
47.8
GraphRAG
47.7
44.2
42.5
45.3
Mem
45.8
41.5
42.3
43.5
CAM
53.4
51.3
51.8
52.3
Table 6: Evaluation results on aspect-based categories.
Methods
Times
Meaning
Span
Setting
Relation
Character
Plot
Average
ReadAgent
32.5
31.7
30.3
48.2
43.5
49.1
49.5
42.3
RAPTOR
39.7
36.2
33.5
53.3
47.8
53.9
55.3
47.8
GraphRAG
37.1
33.4
32.8
50.5
52.0
48.6
53.4
45.3
MemTree
30.8
33.0
31.2
49.3
49.5
50.3
51.7
43.5
CAM
45.2
41.5
39.3
58.5
51.2
57.6
59.1
52.3
We compare CAM with four representative baselines (ReadAgent, RAPTOR, GraphRAG, MemTree) under identical settings. As shown Tables and CAM consistently outperforms the baselines across these question categories, with particularly notable gains on complex questions that require integrating semantically distant evidence and maintaining contextual coherence. These results confirm CAM's s superior generalization across varied reasoning depths and semantic focuses, underscoring its effectiveness in handling context-intensive reasoning tasks.
G Factual QA Performance
To verify the effectiveness of CAM comprehensively, further conduct experiments three widely-used QA benchmarks: HotpotQA (59, MuSiQue (60] and 2WikiMultiHopQA (2Wiki) [6].
For their text corpora, we follow HippoRAG [16] and IRCoT 622 to collect all candidate passages (including supporting and distractor passages) from each dataset.
use the same model configu- in the main experiment to build the memory
ration (GPT-4o-mini and text-embedding---smaa structures. For the evaluation metrics, we report the standard exact match (EM) and scores.
Table 7: Evaluation results on three factual QA datasets.
HotpotQA
2Wiki
MuSiQue
Methods
EM
F1
EM
F1
FM
F1
RAPTOR
59.2
73.4
58.4
66.2
23.3
34.8
HippoRAG
58.5
73.1
63.8
71.0
21.8
32.2
CAM
60.7
75.4
61.4
70.2
24.6
37.2
CAM PM
62.1
76.5
65.8
75.3
26.8
38.5
Table reports the performance of CAM and two representative baselines. Our framework consistently outperforms the baselines on HotpotQA and MuSiQue, while achieving competitive results on 2Wiki. We observe that HippoRAG exhibits notable performance across these datasets, particularly on 2Wiki. This may be attributed to its use of LLM-bases fine-grained knowledge modeling, which is especially effective for entity-centric datasets 16]. To explore this, we further extend CAM with the fine-grained knowledge modeling and investigate its impact. As shown in Table 7 such an extension substantially enhances CAM's performance on both 2Wiki and MuSiQue. Moreover, we also manually inspect the quality of entities extracted by the LLM on 2Wiki and find that: compared to the narrative documents our main experiments, the LLM is more capable of identifying informative entities and relations in entity-centric texts. This suggests that the fine-grae fine-grained knowledge modeling technique is particularly suitable for factual knowledge QA tasks grounded in entity-rich contexts.
19

---

NeurIPS Paper Checklist
1. Claims
Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?
Answer: [Yes]
The Abstract and Introduction include our main claims, which accurately reflect the contributions and scope of our paper. We also highlight our contributions at the end of the Introduction.
Justification:
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made the paper.
The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No
NA answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers.
The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results can be expected to generalize to other settings.
is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long as is clear that these goals not attained by the paper.
2. Limitations
Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
The limitations of our work are discussed in Section
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper has limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those are not discussed in the paper.
The authors are encouraged to create a separate "Limitations" section in their paper.
The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (c.g.. independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model sell-specfiiatiinn asymptotic approximations only holding locally). ). The authors should reflect on how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be.
The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on few datasets or with few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated.
The authors should reflect on the factors that influence the performance of the approach. For example, facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution low or images are taken in low lighting. Or speech-to-tex, system might not be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails handle technical jargon.
The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size.
If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach to address problems of privacy and faimesss.
While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, a worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't 't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an impor- tant role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community, Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.
3. Theory assumptions and proofs
Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and complete (and correct) proof?
20

---

Answer:
[NA]
Justification:
This paper does not include theoretical results.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.
All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and cross- referenced.
All assumptions should be clearly stated or referenced in the statement of any theorems.
The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but if they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide a short proof sketch provide intuition.
Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material.
Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.
4. Experimental result reproducibility
Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main ex- perimental results of the paper to the extent that it affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not)?
Question:
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We provide the implementation details of our framework in Section 5. and Appendix [
We also provide the source code and LLM prompts in an anonymous repository (see the link in Section 5.1.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not.
If the contribution is dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible or verifiable.
Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For example, if the contribution is novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution a specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary to either make it possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g.. in the case of large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, other means that appropriate to the research performed.
While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submis- sions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example
(a) If the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make it clear how to reproduce that algorithm. (b) If the contribution is primarily new model architecture, the paper should describe the architecture clearly and fully.
(c) If the contribution is a new model (e.g., a large language model), then there should either be way to access this model for reproducing the results or way to reproduce the model (e.g., with an open-source dataset or instructions for how to construct the dataset).
(d) We recognize that reprodueibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case authors are welcome to describe the particular way they provide for reproducibility. In the case of closed-source models, it may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers have some path reproducing or verifying the results.
5. Open access to data and code
21

---

Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instruc- tions faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We provide instructions for accessing the datasets, along with the source code for reproducing the results, in an anonymous repository (see the link in Section 5.1).
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.
Please see the NeurlPS code and data submission guidelines (https::/niis.cce)
aublic/guiddes/ooeeubbbmsss www.:esubbisssooooooooo.o for more details.
While encourage the release of code and data, understand that this might not be possible, so "No" is an acceptable answer. Papers cannot be rejected simply for not including code, unless this is central to the contribution (e.g., for new open-source benchmark).
The instructions should contain the exact command and environment needed to run to reproduce the results. See the NeurlPS code and data submission guidelines (https
/ //nips. wwtp:/cccppppgguuuiaaeoeae
Stleee//CoSSSSbmsssS.Si. www.ssssiicgcyo for more details.
The authors should provide instructions on data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc.
The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the proposed method and baselines. only subset of experiments are reproducible, they should state which ones are omitted from the script and why.
At submission time, to preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).
Providing as much information as possible in supplemental material (appended the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.
6. Experimental setting/details
Question: Does the paper specify all the training and test details (e.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary to understand the results?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: provide the implementation details of our CAM framework in Section 5.1 and Appendix E LLM prompts are included in our code repository.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The experimental setting should be presented the core the paper to level of detail that is necessary to appreciate the results and make sense of them.
The full details can be provided either with the code, in appendix, as supplemental material.
7. Experiment statistical significance
Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?
Question:
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We include error bars in Figure 3(b) to show the performance stability of our framework under the online setting.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by emoo bars, confi- dence intervals, or statistical significance tests, least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.
22

---

The factors of variability that the error bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall run with given experimental conditions).
The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.)
The assumptions made should be given (e.g.. Normally distributed errors).
It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean.
is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have 96% CL, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified.
For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables or figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that out of range (e.g. negative error rates).
If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain in the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures or tables in the text.
8. Experiments compute resources
For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the com- puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?
Question:
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
We provide information on the compute resources in Appendix
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage.
The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well estimate the total compute.
The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary failed experiments that didn't make into the paper).
9. Code of ethics
Question: Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurlPS Code of Ethics
Answer:
[Yes]
Justification: This research conforms with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics in every respect.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the authors have not reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.
If the authors answer No. they should explain the special circumstances that require deviation from the Code of Ethics.
The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., there a special consid- eration due to laws regulations in their jurisdiction).
10. Broader impacts
Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
We discuss the potential impacts of our work in Section 6
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that there no societal impact of the work performed.
If the authors answer NA or No, they should explain why their work has no societal impact why the paper does not address societal impact.
23

---

Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), faireess considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.
The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied to particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster.
The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional unintentional) misuse of the technology.
If there are negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms monitor how system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of ML).
11. Safeguards
Does the paper deseribe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data or models that have a high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?
Question:
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
This paper poses no such risks.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper poses no such risks.
Released models that have high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere to usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters.
Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images.
We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make best faith effort.
12. Licenses for existing assets
Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper, properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?
Question:
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: We cite the original papers that produced the experimental datasets.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not use existing assets.
The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package dataset.
The authors should state which version of the asset used and, possible, include URL.
The name of the license (e.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.
For scraped data from a particular source (e.g., website). the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.
If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswithcode com/ datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of dataset.
24

---

For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if has changed) should be provided.
If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's s creators.
13. New assets
Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
This paper does not release new assets.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.
Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/moddl as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc.
The paper should discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose asset used.
At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create anonymized URL or include anonymized zip file.
14. Crowdsourcing and research with human subjects
Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well as details about compensation (if any)?
Answer: [NA]
Justification: This paper does not involve crowdsourcing experiments.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribu- tion of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included in the main paper.
According the NeurIPS Code of Bthies, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector.
15. Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects
Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or equivalent approval/review based the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?
Answer: [NA]
Justification: This paper does not involve crowdsourcing experiments.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Depending on the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.
We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and we expect authors to adhere to the NeurlPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.
For initial submissions, not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such the institution conducting the review.
25

---

16. Declaration of LLM usage
Question: Does the paper describe the usage of LLMs if it is an important, original, or non-standard component of the core methods in this research? Note that if the LLM is used only for writing, editing, or formatting purposes and does not impact the core methodology. scientific rigorousness, originality of the research, declaration is not required.
Answer: [NA]
Justification: The core method development in this paper does not involve LLM usage.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the core method development in this research does not involve LLMs as any important, original, non-standard components.
Please refer to L.LM policy (https:/ for what should or should not be described.
26


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "EseT5CESkn", "reviewer": "Reviewer_FDCi", "summary": "This work introduces a LLM-based agentic approach for long context comprehension, with a focus on the systematic design of the agentic memory/index. Inspired by cognitive theories, the proposed memory mechanism features the bottom-up structured schemata, the flexible integration of new information without drastic structural changes, and dynamic redistribution of units and structures during integration. Overall, the structured memory consists of original text chunks, as well as consolidated multi-level abstractions/summaries. During inference, relevant nodes are first retrieved by embedding similarity, and then further selected by LLMs based on the node structures and semantics, serving as the context for question answering.\n\nExperiments are performed on single- and multi-document comprehension tasks, including QA, summarization, and claim verification. Results suggest that the proposed method CAM could achieve better performance and efficiency across all tasks.", "questions": "See weaknesses.", "limitations": "yes", "rating": 5, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 3, "clarity": 2, "significance": 3, "originality": 3, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "##### Strengths\n\n- A systemetic design of agentic memory is proposed with effective implementation, which supports both offline and online indexing.\n- The proposed approach is shown improvement on different long-context tasks.\n- Useful features in building memory system are identified, with experiment and ablation supports (e.g., structured memory, many-to-many mapping, memory retrieval approach etc.) \n\n##### Weakness\n\nMy main concerns are regarding evaluation: as reading comprehension is a core aspect to evaluate for this work, the selection of datasets is rather unconventional. There are many datasets for long-context or multi-document comprehension that are commonly seen in related papers. For example, one of the baseline adopted in Sec 5.1 is RAPTOR, and the paper of RAPTOR evaluates on NarrativeQA, QASPER, and QuALITY. However, this work adopts none of these datasets. Evaluation on more comprehension datasets is strongly suggested to strengthen the significance and scope of this work.\n  - For long context QA dataset: NarrativeQA, LooGLE, ∞ Bench, DetectiveQA, etc.\n  - For long context fact verification: NoCha\n  - For multi-document comprehesion: HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, LV-Eval, MuSiQue\n\nIn addition, there lacks in-depth analysis comparing the proposed approach with prior RAG methods, e.g. what information or what types of queries can only be answered by the proposed methods, a qualitative example on the advantages of the proposed Ego-Centric Disentanglement.\n\nSection 4 is generally hard to follow. It will be better to have an illustrative of a simple example/walkthrough explaining 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "I have increased my score from 4 to 5, as my initial concerns have been addressed:\n\n1. The authors have made efforts incorporating more long context comprehension datasets for evaluation, and the proposed method is shown good performance against several baselines.\n\n2. More insightful analysis and qualitative examples are provided on how the proposed method tackles complex queries, which deepens the understanding and clarity of this work.", "rebuttal": "Thanks for your careful and insightful comments. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to each concern raised.\n\n>### **Q1: Evaluation on more reading comprehension datasets.** \n\n**Dataset Selection Rationale.** Our selection of evaluation datasets is guided by three criteria:\n- **_Recency of Release_**: The selected datasets (e.g., NovelQA from ICLR 2025 [1], FABLES from COLM 2024 [2]) are newly released and absent from LLM pretraining corpora, thereby minimizing the risk of test-time data leakage and ensuring a clean evaluation environment. In contrast, many conventional benchmarks (e.g., NarrativeQA, QASPER, QuALITY) have been released over three years, and thus pose a higher risk of data contamination [1-2].\n- **_Long-Context Property_**: These datasets feature extremely long input texts, often exceeding 150K tokens, which are ideal for evaluating the scalability of agentic memory systems. By comparison, conventional benchmarks such as QuALITY and NarrativeQA feature relatively short contexts, with average lengths around 5K and 50K tokens respectively [1-2].\n- **_Task Diversity_**: We deliberately include a broad range of task types—question answering, query-based summarization, and claim verification—to comprehensively test the generalizability of CAM.\n\n**Evaluation on MHQA Datasets (Appendix G).** To align with standard practices, we have already included evaluations on three widely-used multi-hop QA benchmarks---**HotpotQA**, **2WikiMultiHopQA**, and **MuSiQue**---as presented in **Appendix G**. CAM achieves superior performance across the three datasets, confirming that our design not only excels on long narrative inputs but also generalizes well to classical MHQA settings.\n\n**Evaluation on More Datasets.** To further strengthen the scope of our work, we follow your suggestion to conduct more experiments on **six conventional benchmarks**. We compare CAM against four representative baselines using consistent experimental setups (same LLMs, embedding models, etc.) to ensure fairness. For your convenience, we also **re-include results on the MHQA datasets** below. These comprehensive results confirm CAM's robust performance across tasks and domains, significantly broadening the scope of our work.\n\n|Methods|NarrativeQA (R-L)|LooGLE (R-L)|∞-Bench (R-L)|DetectiveQA (R-L)|NoCha (Pair Acc)|LV-Eval (F1)|HotpotQA (F1)|2Wiki (F1)|MuSiQue (F1)|Average|\n|:----------:|:----------------:|:----------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:| :-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:| \n|ReadAgent|22.9|35.4|23.2|28.2|38.3|10.8|65.1|59.6|30.9|34.9|\n|RAPTOR|26.6|42.7|29.5|31.4|46.8|14.6|73.4|66.2|34.8|40.7|\n|GraphRAG|28.3|39.5|30.4|31.1|44.0|15.8|72.5|68.7|35.2|40.6|\n|MemTree|25.7|37.2|25.5|29.4|41.7|12.1|70.8|65.0|31.6|37.7|\n|**CAM**|**30.5**|**44.1**|**32.7**|**32.3**|**48.1**|**16.4**|**75.4**|**70.2**|**37.2**|**43.0**|\n\n\n\n>### **Q2: In-depth fine-grained performance analysis.** \n\nWe appreciate your suggestion to provide a more nuanced comparison of CAM against prior methods. To this end, we perform **fine-grained performance analysis** on the NovelQA dataset by leveraging its available question-type annotations. Specifically, the queries are categorized along two orthogonal axes:  \n\n(1) **_Complexity-Based Categories_**, including _Single-hop_ (42.8%), _Multi-hop_ (35.0%), and _Detail_ (22.2%) questions, which reflect the reasoning depth required to arrive at an answer;  \n\n(2) **_Aspect-Based Categories_**, covering _Time_, _Meaning_, _Span_, _Setting_, _Relation_, _Character_, and _Plot_, which reflect the semantic focus of each query. \n\nWe compare CAM against four representative baselines (ReadAgent, RAPTOR, GraphRAG, MemTree) under identical settings.\n\n**[Performance on Complexity Categories]**\n|Methods|Single-hop (42.8%)|Multi-hop (35.0%)|Detail (22.2%)|Average|\n|:----------:|:----------------:|:----------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|\n|ReadAgent|27.3|13.2|18.5|20.4|\n|RAPTOR|30.5|17.3|20.7|23.7|\n|GraphRAG|29.4|16.7|18.4|22.5|\n|MemTree|28.7|14.4|17.5|21.2|\n|**CAM**|**31.6**|**20.1**|**21.8**|**25.4**|\n\n**[Performance on Aspect Categories]**\n|Methods|Times (20.1%)|Meaning (15.9%)|Span (1.5%)|Setting (11.5%)|Relation (7.1%)|Character (18.3%)|Plot (25.6%)|Average|\n|:----------:|:----------------:|:----------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|\n|ReadAgent|15.6|15.3|14.1|22.5|20.2|23.7|24.4|20.4|\n|RAPTOR|19.8|18.4|15.8|26.3|24.9|26.1|27.3|23.7|\n|GraphRAG|19.1|17.6|15.5|24.7|26.2|23.5|26.8|22.5|\n|MemTree|14.2|16.9|14.7|23.5|24.2|24.8|25.3|21.2|\n|**CAM**|**21.3**|**20.6**|**19.4**|**28.5**|_25.8_|**27.9**|**28.7**|**25.4**|\n\nThe results demonstrate that CAM exhibits particularly strong gains on complex questions (e.g., Multi-hop, Times, and Span), which require integrating semantically distant evidence and maintaining narrative coherence.\n\n\n\n>### **Q3: A qualitative example on the advantages of Ego-Centric Disentanglement.** \n\nEgo-Centric Disentanglement is central to CAM’s ability to form coherent and nuanced memory abstractions. Its core motivation lies in **capturing the semantic multifacetedness of complex text chunks**---each chunk often relates to multiple themes, topics, or concepts. By replicating nodes based on their local semantic neighborhoods, CAM allows a single chunk to contribute to multiple higher-level abstractions, enabling more comprehensive and context-sensitive summarization.\n\nTo fully address your concern, we follow your suggestion and present a qualitative example to demonstrate the flexibility enabled by Ego-Centric Disentanglement. The example is drawn from the long-form novel _Jane Eyre_ and involves a comprehensive question that requires integrating multiple semantically distant chunks of information, as detailed below.\n\n```\nQuestion: Why does Jane leave Thornfield after her wedding is interrupted?\nEvidence Pieces: \n- Jane discovers that Rochester is already married (factual revelation).\n- She experiences intense internal moral conflict about staying (psychological theme).\n- She reflects on religious and spiritual values (spiritual/ethical dimension).\n- She asserts her personal independence and dignity (character development arc).\n\n[Without Flexibility]\nResponse: Jane leaves Thornfield because she finds out Rochester is already married. ❌\n(This answer is semantically shallow, missing Jane’s inner struggle, moral reasoning, and identity preservation---these themes are essential to the novel’s integrity.)\n\n[With Flexibility]\nResponse: Jane leaves Thornfield not only because of Rochester’s hidden marriage, but also because staying would betray her moral and spiritual convictions. Despite her love, she chooses self-respect and integrity, fearing the loss of her identity. ✔️\n```\n\n\n\n>### **Q4: Improve the clarity of Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 with a simple example.**\n\nThank you for the suggestion. We will include a clear, step-by-step toy example in the revision to illustrate the processes in Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3. This example will be aligned with Figure 2 to better explain how memory nodes are disentangled and updated during the construction process.\n\n\n**We sincerely promise to incorporate the above experiments and discussions into our final version. We hope that these responses have addressed your concerns, and would greatly appreciate it if you could kindly raise the scores accordingly. Your support really means a great deal to us.**\n\n[1] _Novelqa: Benchmarking question answering on documents exceeding 200k tokens_. ICLR 2025.  \n[2] _Fables: Evaluating faithfulness and content selection in book-length summarization_. COLM 2024."}, {"review_id": "OWbdnJl2eu", "reviewer": "Reviewer_mkPe", "summary": "This paper presents Constructivist Agentic Memory (CAM), a memory system for LLMs inspired by Piaget’s theory. It uses structured knowledge units (schemata), adapts flexibly to new input (assimilation) and updates when needed (accommodation). CAM builds memory using overlapping clusters and a \"prune-and-grow\" retrieval method which helps it understand long texts more effectively and efficiently.", "questions": "Please see the weaknesses.", "limitations": "yes", "rating": 4, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 3, "clarity": 3, "significance": 2, "originality": 2, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "**Strengths:**\n\nThe paper presents a well-structured and theory-based design for LLM memory, inspired by Jean Piaget’s Constructivist Theory, which serves as a guide for building agent-like memory. CAM not only reaches top performance on various long-text reading tasks but also shows strong efficiency, particularly when handling data in batches during online processing.\n\n\n**Weaknesses:**\n\n1. The Foundational Network Expansion and Ego-Centric Disentanglement steps rely on several hyperparameters (α, σ, top-k, θ), which greatly affect graph quality and performance. Poor tuning can lead to weak graph structures, ineffective ego-networks and scalability issues - especially in large or diverse texts. While these parameters are common, the paper lacks analysis on their sensitivity and tuning. The paper would benefit from a more thorough analysis of the sensitivity of CAM's performance to these hyperparameters. It would be helpful to explore automatic adjustment methods such as reinforcement or meta-learning to reduce manual tuning and improve adaptability.\n\n2. The Dynamic Accommodation process (Sections 3.3 and 4.1.3) uses \"local-first overlapping clustering\" to efficiently update memory without reworking everything. While this is efficient, it may risk catastrophic forgetting or information loss if the \"localized adjustments\" are insufficient or misdirected. If new input changes the overall context or makes earlier summaries outdated, local updates alone may not fix the memory structure. For example, if a document shifts themes halfway through, the system might fail to adjust higher-level summaries properly. A possible improvement would be to add periodic lightweight global coherence checks or introduce mechanisms to track and reconcile significant contextual shifts to prevent information decay.\n\n3. The process of combining nodes into clear concise summaries using LLM-based text summarization (lines 239-240) is key to building the hierarchical memory. However, the paper does not explain much about how this summarization is done - like what prompts are used, LLM settings, length limits or how quality is ensured. The quality of these summaries directly affects how well the higher-level nodes work and how effective retrieval is. If the summaries are poor, contain errors or miss important points, the whole memory system could suffer. The paper should provide more details on the summarization method including the prompts, any filtering or editing steps and an evaluation of summary quality. It would also help to compare different summarization approaches (like extractive vs. abstractive) or different LLMs to show how these choices impact overall results.\n\n4. The Memory Retrieval phase (Section 4.2) relies heavily on an LLM to pick helpful nodes and expand the activation set using a \"Prune-and-Grow\" method, which mimics human thinking. However, this makes the process dependent on the LLM’s judgment - if it selects wrong nodes or goes off track, the final answer may be wrong or incomplete. Current metrics might not catch these subtle issues. Also, this iterative approach can be slow and costly for large memories or complex queries, which could limit real-time use. The paper should test how robust this LLM-driven retrieval is, maybe by comparing it to simpler non-LLM-driven graph traversal methods. While ACC-L is a good metric, qualitative analysis of retrieval paths and LLM reasoning tracebacks could provide deeper insights into potential biases or hallucination issues during the associative exploration.\n\n5. The paper compares CAM with other memory systems, but LLM memory design is evolving fast. It mainly focuses on hierarchical clustering and knowledge graphs, while newer memory types like episodic or hybrid systems are emerging. Calling CAM a broad \"systematic design principle\" may be too strong, since it centers on a specific structure. To support this claim, the paper could briefly explore how Constructivist Theory might also guide other memory types. Acknowledging different memory designs and where CAM fits would make the discussion more complete. It would also help to consider how CAM might work with or adapt to these alternative systems.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "The authors have conducted many new experiments during the rebuttal phase, and most of the experimental results they presented are new. Incorporating these additional results into the paper would require substantial writing revisions, as they would need to be fully integrated into the relevant sections with updated analyses and discussions.", "rebuttal": "Thanks for your careful and insightful comments. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to each concern raised.\n>### **Q1: Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis.**\n\nTo assess the robustness of CAM w.r.t. the key hyperparameters (i.e., $\\alpha$, $\\sigma$, and $\\theta$), we conduct a sensitivity analysis using 100 randomly sampled validation instances from each dataset. Since **top-k** serves as a soft cap to avoid memory over-density and only takes effect under extreme redundancy, we fix it to 10 throughout. For the other three hyperparameters, the results of different combinations (**averaged over three runs**) are reported below:\n\n|$\\alpha$|$\\sigma$|$\\theta$|NovelQA (R-L)|QMSum (R-L)|FABLES (F1)|MH-RAG (F1)|ODSum-Story (R-L)|ODSum-Meeting (R-L)|Avg.|\n|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|\n|0.5|1.0|0.5|25.5|24.7|**53.2**|74.2|24.5|21.3|37.2|\n|0.5|1.0|0.7|**26.1**|25.3|52.9|74.7|25.3|22.6|37.8|\n|0.5|2.0|0.5|24.3|24.2|52.6|75.3|24.4|21.5|37.1|\n|0.5|2.0|0.7|24.8|24.3|52.3|75.5|24.8|22.9|37.4|\n|0.7|1.0|0.5|25.2|26.0|52.7|77.1|24.9|21.8|38.0|\n|0.7|1.0|0.7|25.4|26.5|52.5|77.5|**25.5**|23.2|**38.4**|\n|0.7|2.0|0.5|24.0|25.8|52.2|76.4|24.6|22.4|37.6|\n|0.7|2.0|0.7|24.4|26.2|51.8|77.0|25.1|**23.5**|38.0|\n|0.9|1.0|0.5|23.1|26.0|51.5|77.6|24.3|21.0|37.3|\n|0.9|1.0|0.7|23.5|**26.7**|51.1|**78.3**|24.7|22.6|37.8|\n|0.9|2.0|0.5|22.9|26.2|51.4|77.9|24.2|20.9|37.2|\n|0.9|2.0|0.7|23.3|26.5|50.8|78.2|24.5|21.7|37.5|\n\nWe observe that:  \n(1) For narrative datasets (NovelQA and FABLES), incorporating positional proximity (lower $\\alpha$) is beneficial, as the adjacent sentences are semantically cohesive.  \n(2) The performance is relatively robust to $\\sigma$ across datasets, and the sharper decay setting ($\\sigma$ = 1.0) generally outperforms the flatter one ($\\sigma$ = 2.0).  \n(3) $\\theta$ controls the density of the foundational semantic network and shows the dataset-specific sensitivity.\n>### **Q2: Global coherence checking for inconsistent information.**\n\nWe agree that the ability to detect and reconcile inconsistent or contradictory information (e.g., when a document transitions to a new theme) is a critical aspect of human cognition. Consistent with prior LLM-based memory systems such as GraphRAG, RAPTOR, and MemTree, our work assumes that source information is generally consistent and focuses on the memory development process. We believe that memory reconciliation is a highly promising direction for future memory research, and will include a clear discussion of this point in our final version.\n>### **Q3: Discussion on LLM-based text summarization.**\n\n**Experimental Setup.** We respectfully clarify that the detailed settings are provided in Section 5.1 and Appendix F: we use **GPT-4o-mini** with **temperature = 0**, and **text-embedding-3-small** as the embedding model for CAM and all baseline methods. Additionally, all LLM prompt templates have been included in the anonymous repository (linked in the footnote on the first page) **since the initial submission**. For the convenience of readers, we will follow your suggestion to add these prompts to the final version.\n\n**LLM-Based Summarization.** Using LLM to generate summaries has become a common practice in current agentic memory systems (ReadAgent, RAPTOR, GraphRAG, and MemTree). As we discussed in the Limitation section (**Appendix I**), we acknowledge that LLM-generated summaries may carry risks of hallucination propagation. This limitation could be mitigated by introducing more agentic behaviors (such as self-questioning and reflection) to reduce the hallucination issue and improve the summary fidelity.\n\n**Comparing Summarization Strategies Across Different LLMs.** We evaluate CAM and RAPTOR under abstractive and extractive summarization strategies. The results (**averaged over three runs**) are reported below:\n\n|Method|LLM|Strategy|NovelQA|QMSum|MH-RAG|ODSum-Story|\n|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|\n|RAPTOR|GPT-4o-mini|Ext.|23.7|24.5|73.6|24.0|\n|||Abs.|22.5|25.1|71.3|24.3|\n|CAM|GPT-4o-mini|Ext.|25.4|26.5|77.5|25.5|\n|||Abs.|24.8|26.9|76.2|25.3|\n|RAPTOR|Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct|Ext.|20.6|21.5|69.8|22.5|\n|||Abs.|19.3|21.2|67.3|22.3|\n|CAM|Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct|Ext.|23.7|25.3|74.2|24.3|\n|||Abs.|22.9|25.2|71.6|24.7|\n\nWe observe that extractive memory systems generally outperform abstractive ones, as extractive summarization offer greater factual fidelity and lower risk of hallucination, which is important for ensuring accurate retrieval. Moreover, CAM consistently outperforms RAPTOR under both strategies, confirming the effectiveness of our design principles.\n>### **Q4: Concern about LLM robustness and efficiency in memory retrieval.**\n\n**LLM Retrieval Robustness.** While LLMs carries the potential risk of hallucination, they inherently offer strong advantages in semantic association and reasoning, which are valuable in complex long-context scenarios. Many recent IR works [1] also show that LLM-based re-ranking or selection can enhance retrieval accuracy beyond what simple embedding similarity or rule-based methods can offer.\n\n**LLM Retrieval Efficiency.** To further address this concern, we compare Prune-and-Grow retrieval with two graph traversal strategies: **Breadth-First Search** (BFS) and **Personalized PageRank** (PPR). We report the inference performance / average time (seconds) as follows.\n\n|Retrieval Methods|NovelQA|QMSum|MH-RAG|ODSum-Story|\n|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|\n|Prune-and-Grow|**25.4** / 7|**26.5** / 5|**77.5** / 8|**25.5** / 7|\n|BFS|23.3 / 3|24.7 / 2|75.4 / 3|23.5 / 3|\n|PPR|24.0 / 4|25.2 / 3|76.2 / 5|23.9 / 4|\n\nWe observe that while the LLM pruning incurs moderate overhead in response time, it brings consistently favorable performance gains beyond the non-LLM variants. Moreover, we respectfully clarify that **CAM is inherently compatible with various retrieval methods**, allowing users to choose the most suitable one based on their application needs.\n>### **Q5: Qualitative analysis.**\n\n**A Qualitative Example.** We follow your suggestion to analyze a representative question involving the long-form novel _Jane Eyre_ (from the NovelQA dataset), which requires integrating two evidence chunks located over 11K tokens apart.\n\n```\nQuestion: It's someone's part to receive the company in Chapter XVII, then what did he/she did after being summoned?\n\nEvidence Chunks:\n- [211] Mrs. Fairfax assumed ... it was her part to receive the company ...\n- [233] Mrs. Fairfax was summoned to give information respecting the resources of the house in shawls, dresses, draperies of any kind ...\n\nGlobal Retrieval:\n- [159] I should have liked something clearer; but Mrs. Fairfax either could not ... ❌\n- [209] The party were expected to arrive on ... ❌\n- [211] Mrs. Fairfax assumed ... it was her part to receive the company ... ✔️\n- [653] Jane observes Mr. Rochester's strange behavior and Mrs. Fairfax ... (Summary node covering [159], [211]) ❌\n- [701] Leah and Mrs. Fairfax are preparing for company at Thornfield. There is a sense of ... (Summary node covering [209], [211]) ✔️\n\nDirect LLM Reasoning (without Prune-and-Grow): \nShe took the company on a tour of the gardens and the surrounding estate. ❌\n(This hallucinated answer is plausible but incorrect, as Chunk [233], which contains the actual answer, is missing)\n\nCAM’s Prune-and-Grow Trace:\n[Pruning Step 1] Chunks [211] and [701] are retained based on LLM judgment.\n[Growing Step 1] Neighbors are explored to form the candidate set that includes [233].\n[Pruning Step 2] The LLM selects [233] and retains [211] as contextually important.\n[Growing Step 2] Neighbors are explored to form the candidate set.\n[Pruning Step 3] The activation set stabilizes with [211] and [233].\n\nFinal LLM Reasoning (with Prune-and-Grow): \nShe gave information respecting the resources of the house in shawls, dresses, draperies of any kind. ✔️\n(This answer is fully grounded and faithful to the original text)\n```\n\n**Error Analysis.** To fully address your concern，we further provide a detailed error analysis of 100 errors made by CAM on the NovelQA dataset. These errors can be categorized into three main types:\n- **_LLM Reasoning Errors_**: All relevant nodes were retrieved, but the LLM failed to compose or interpret them correctly, typically due to distraction from less relevant context or hallucinated inference.\n- **_LLM Selection Errors_**: Relevant nodes are present in the candidate pool but not selected into the final activation set.\n- **_Retrieval Coverage Failures_**: Relevant nodes are not explored at all. This often occurs when the input question is ambiguous or underspecified, making initial localization difficult despite the presence of relevant evidence.\n\n|Error Type|Error Percentage (%)|\n|:-:|:-:|\n|LLM Reasoning Errors|45%|\n|LLM Selection Errors|26%|\n|Retrieval Coverage Failures|29%|\n\nWe will include these in our final version to provide deeper insight into CAM’s failure modes.\n>### **Q6: Positioning constructivist theory within the broader landscape?**\n\nWe appreciate the insightful comment. While CAM centers around a hierarchical structure, the constructivist perspective is not inherently limited to this form. At its core, constructivist theory highlights two crucial memory operations (assimilation and accommodation) over (hybrid-)structured schemata, where the structure may vary in type. This idea can naturally inform the design of episodic or hybrid memory systems. For example, episodic memory systems may benefit from flexible assimilation by associating a single experience with multiple semantic cues, while hybrid systems may use accommodation mechanisms to reconcile conflicting memory streams. We promise to include more discussions in our final version to better position the constructivist design principles within the broader landscape of memory types.\n\n**We sincerely hope that our responses have addressed your concerns. Your support really means a great deal to us.**\n\n[1] Zhu et al. _Large language models for information retrieval: A survey_. 2024."}, {"review_id": "a1BEtfGPrr", "reviewer": "Reviewer_4RE6", "summary": "This paper proposes CAM (Constructivist Agentic Memory) and identify three key traits for effective agentic memory. CAM further developed a prototype and conduct experiments on various reading comprehension tasks. The results demonstrate the improvement of CAM on effectiveness and efficiency.", "questions": "1. I noticed in Table 3, there are some ablations conducted, I'm wondering whats the relationship between these ablations and the proposed principles. \n2. As to the implementation, I'm wondering whether the author has plans to release / open-source the prototype.", "limitations": "yes", "rating": 4, "confidence": 3, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 3, "clarity": 3, "significance": 2, "originality": 3, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "Strength: \n\nThe paper studied an important and emerging problem and proposed several principles to address the problem. The resulting prototype system works well on a wide range of tasks. \n\nWeakness:\n\nMy major concern is that the main claim of this paper focuses on the three proposed principles, some of which is implemented in existing systems. The author only conduct experiments with the implemented prototye using all three principles and no ablation is conducted on these principles. However, to properly support the proposed principles are necessary and important, detailed ablation studies are needed to analyze the benefits and impacts of those principles. \n\nAnother weakness is on the additional hyper-parameters. Since the proposed method introduces multiple hyper-parameters, it is unclear how sensitive the model is to the additional hyper-parameters, how much of the performance improvements attributes to their tuning.\n\n----\ni've read the rebuttal and updated my scores.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "The rebuttal has resolved my concerns properly.", "rebuttal": "Thanks for your careful and insightful comments. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to each concern raised.\n\n>### **Q1: Clarification on the ablations of the proposed principles.**\n\nWe would like to respectfully clarify that we have conducted comprehensive ablation studies to evaluate the contribution of the three proposed principles (i.e., Hierarchy, Flexibility, and Dynamicity), as detailed in **Sections 5.3 and 5.4**:\n- For **Hierarchy** and **Flexibility**, we present two ablation variants (**_w/o Hierarchy_** and **_w/o Flexibility_**) in **Table 3**, evaluated on four long-context reading comprehension benchmarks. \n- The **_w/o Hierarchy_** variant omits the hierarchical clustering stage entirely and relies solely on the foundational semantic network. \n- The **_w/o Flexibility_** variant bypasses ego-centric disentanglement and directly applies non-overlapping label propagation for clustering. \n- For your convenience, we **re-include their comparison with the full CAM below**. We can see that both variants result in clear performance degradation, thereby confirming the importance of hierarchy and flexibility in our design principles.\n\n|Methods|NovelQA (R-L / ACC-L)|QMSum (R-L / ACC-L)|MH-RAG (EM / F1)|ODSum-Story (R-L / ACC-L)|\n|:----------:|:----------------:|:----------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|\n|**Full CAM**|**25.4 / 52.3**|**26.5 / 57.6**|**72.8 / 77.5**|**25.5 / 54.6**|\n|_w/o Hierarchy_|22.9 / 46.7|23.2 / 46.6|68.5 / 73.4|23.5 / 49.3|\n|_w/o Flexibility_|24.2 / 50.3|24.7 / 51.5|70.3 / 75.1|24.7 / 51.2|\n\n- Moreover, **the benefits of Dynamicity are extensively investigated in Section 5.3**.\n- Specifically, **Figure 3** illustrates how the dynamicity of CAM contributes to both **processing efficiency** and **inference stability**. \n- In terms of **processing efficiency** (Figure 3a), CAM can dynamically integrate newly arrived chunks in batches, offering **over 4× speedup** compared to methods constrained to offline (RAPTOR, GraphRAG) or entry-wise online processing (MemTree). \n- In terms of **inference stability** (Figure 3b), CAM maintains **stable and competitive performance** across varying batch sizes. These results collectively validate the benefits and necessity of our dynamicity principle.\n\n\n\n>### **Q2: Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis.**\n\nThank you for raising this important point. To assess the robustness of CAM with respect to the key hyperparameters (i.e., $\\alpha$, $\\sigma$, and $\\theta$), we conduct a sensitivity analysis using 100 randomly sampled validation instances from each dataset. We perform grid search over the following values: $\\alpha\\in$ {$0.5,0.7,0.9$}, $\\sigma\\in$ {$1.0,2.0$}, and $\\theta\\in$ {$0.5,0.7$}. The performance results (**averaged over three runs**) across different hyperparameter combinations are summarized below:\n\n|$\\alpha$|$\\sigma$|$\\theta$|NovelQA (R-L)|QMSum (R-L)|FABLES (F1)|MH-RAG (F1)|ODSum-Story (R-L)|ODSum-Meeting (R-L)|Avg.|\n|:----------:|:----------------:|:----------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|:-------------------------:|\n|0.5|1.0|0.5|25.5|24.7|**53.2**|74.2|24.5|21.3|37.2|\n|0.5|1.0|0.7|**26.1**|25.3|52.9|74.7|25.3|22.6|37.8|\n|0.5|2.0|0.5|24.3|24.2|52.6|75.3|24.4|21.5|37.1|\n|0.5|2.0|0.7|24.8|24.3|52.3|75.5|24.8|22.9|37.4|\n|0.7|1.0|0.5|25.2|26.0|52.7|77.1|24.9|21.8|38.0|\n|0.7|1.0|0.7|25.4|26.5|52.5|77.5|**25.5**|23.2|**38.4**|\n|0.7|2.0|0.5|24.0|25.8|52.2|76.4|24.6|22.4|37.6|\n|0.7|2.0|0.7|24.4|26.2|51.8|77.0|25.1|**23.5**|38.0|\n|0.9|1.0|0.5|23.1|26.0|51.5|77.6|24.3|21.0|37.3|\n|0.9|1.0|0.7|23.5|**26.7**|51.1|**78.3**|24.7|22.6|37.8|\n|0.9|2.0|0.5|22.9|26.2|51.4|77.9|24.2|20.9|37.2|\n|0.9|2.0|0.7|23.3|26.5|50.8|78.2|24.5|21.7|37.5|\n\nWe observe that:  \n(1) For narrative datasets (e.g., NovelQA and FABLES), incorporating positional proximity (lower $\\alpha$) is beneficial, as the adjacent sentences are semantically cohesive.  \n(2) The performance is relatively robust to $\\sigma$ across datasets, and the sharper decay setting ($\\sigma$ = 1.0) generally outperforms the flatter alternative ($\\sigma$ = 2.0).  \n(3) $\\theta$ controls the density of the foundational semantic network and shows the dataset-specific sensitivity.  \n\n>### **Q3: The relationship between the ablations in Table 3 and the proposed principles.**\n\nAs you noticed, Table 3 comprehensively presents the performance of CAM with **different configurations** and **two ablation variants**. \n\nAs described in Section 5.4, we group the rows into four categories for clarity:\n- **LLM Backbones:** We evaluate CAM using different language models, including the default commercial model **GPT-4o-mini** and two popular open-source alternatives: **Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct** and **Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct**. The results suggest that CAM's core strengths primarily stem from the effective memory design, rather than relying on expensive LLM backbones.\n- **Embedding Models:** We assess the effect of different embedding encoders, including **text-embedding-3-small** (default), **text-embedding-3-large**, and **E5-Mistral-7B-Instruct**. The results show that the use of more advanced embedding models can improve the performance of CAM, since they deliver more accurate similarity measurements for the construction of memory foundational networks.\n- **Retrieval Strategy:** This section compares our **Prune-and-Grow** strategy with two alternatives: **Hierarchical Traversal** and **Global Retrieval**. We observe that both alternatives lead to lower performance, demonstrating the effectiveness of our Prune-and-Grow strategy.\n- **Ablation Variants:** As elaborated in our response to your Q1, these two variants are designed to demonstrate the importance of the Hierarchy and Flexibility principles in CAM's design. The **_w/o Hierarchy_** variant removes the hierarchical abstraction, and the **_w/o Flexibility_** variant disables the ego-centric disentanglement. Both variants result in consistent performance degradation, thereby supporting the benefits and rationality of these two principle designs.\n\n>### **Q4: Plan to release the source code of the prototype.**\n\nSincerely thanks for your interest. We have provided the implementation code in an anonymous repository (linked in the footnote on the first page) to support reproducibility during the review process. Upon publication, we will open-source the full codebase, and further develop it into a general-purpose constructivist memory framework to benefit the broader research community.\n\n**We sincerely promise to incorporate the above experiments and discussions into our final version. We hope that these responses have addressed your concerns, and would greatly appreciate it if you could kindly raise the scores accordingly. Your support really means a great deal to us.**"}, {"review_id": "fWKN9fg8oj", "reviewer": "Reviewer_vP7d", "summary": "This paper introduces CAM (Constructivist Agentic Memory), a memory module for large language models (LLMs) inspired by Jean Piaget’s constructivist theory. CAM is guided by three key traits—structured schemata, flexible assimilation, and dynamic accommodation—and implements them via an incremental overlapping clustering algorithm for hierarchical memory construction and a prune-and-grow associative retrieval strategy. Empirically, CAM consistently outperforms a range of baselines on six long-text reading comprehension benchmarks (including question answering, query-based summarization, and claim verification), exhibiting both higher accuracy and substantially faster batch‐level memory updates.", "questions": "- The \"Ego-Centric Disentanglement\" step replicates nodes to achieve flexibility. Could you elaborate on the downstream effects of this? Does it lead to redundancy in the final retrieved context, and does managing a larger replica graph (Ğ₀) impact retrieval efficiency or memory footprint?\n- The paper criticizes MemTree for its sensitivity to chunk insertion order. While CAM's batch processing mitigates this, could order effects still exist between batches? For instance, would processing batches in the order [A, B] then [C, D] yield a significantly different memory structure and performance compared to processing them in the order [D, C] then [B, A]? An analysis of this would further bolster the claims of dynamic robustness.\n- While the paper states the framework is robust to its hyperparameters (θ, σ, α), a quantitative sensitivity analysis would be more convincing. For example, showing how key performance metrics vary across a range of values for these parameters would provide a clearer picture of the system's stability.", "limitations": "Yes. The paper discusses its scope (limited to reading comprehension), omission of additional agentic behaviors (e.g., self-questioning/reflection), and the risk of hallucination propagation, all in Appendix I.", "rating": 4, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 3, "clarity": 4, "significance": 3, "originality": 3, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "Strengths:\n- Grounding the design in Piaget’s constructivist theory offers a clear, systematic framework, with structurality, flexibility, and dynamicity guiding both analysis and future designs.\n- The incremental overlapping clustering, especially the “Ego‑Centric Disentanglement” step, neatly balances adaptation and growth, addressing rigidity and offline limits of earlier methods.\n- Broad tests across tasks, document types, and settings—alongside strong baselines and ablations—support the method’s efficiency and stability, especially in online use.\n\nWeaknesses:\n- Relying on an LLM to summarize each cluster risks introducing mistakes or omissions at every layer. Without a dedicated correction mechanism, these errors can accumulate and distort higher‑level abstractions.\n- The “Prune‑and‑Grow” strategy’s iterative LLM_Selection steps may incur substantial latency and computational expense during inference. While memory construction is shown to be efficient, retrieval efficiency isn’t thoroughly compared against baselines.\n- Incorporating positional bias helps maintain narrative flow but may underweight semantically related segments that are spatially distant, potentially reducing recall for multi‑hop reasoning or thematic summaries.\n- The framework assumes consistent source information and does not address how to detect or reconcile contradictory content within or across documents.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "After considering the rebuttal and the additional experiments provided by the authors, I find that several of my original concerns were well addressed:\n- The new retrieval efficiency comparisons, batch‐order robustness evaluation, and hyperparameter sensitivity analysis strengthened the empirical evidence for CAM’s claimed advantages.\n- Clarifications on the “Ego‐Centric Disentanglement” mechanism and its impact on redundancy and efficiency resolved my earlier uncertainty in this area.\n\nHowever, some issues remain unresolved within the current submission:\n- The handling of contradictory information remains as future work rather than being addressed in the current implementation.\n- While the authors acknowledge the risk of hallucination propagation, mitigation strategies are only discussed conceptually and not demonstrated experimentally.\n\nOverall, the rebuttal improves my confidence in the method’s soundness and completeness, but given the remaining limitations, I maintain my original score.", "rebuttal": "Thanks for your careful and insightful comments. Below, we provide point-by-point responses to each concern raised.\n>### **Q1: Potential LLM summarization drift.**\n\nThank you for raising this point. Using LLM to generate summaries has become a common practice in current agentic memory systems (e.g., ReadAgent, RAPTOR, GraphRAG, and MemTree). As we discussed in the Limitation section (**Appendix I**), we acknowledge that LLM-generated summaries may carry risks of hallucination propagation, especially in deeper memory layers. This limitation could be mitigated by introducing more agentic behaviors (such as self-questioning and reflection) to reduce the hallucination issue and improve the summary fidelity, which we believe is a promising direction for future memory research.\n>### **Q2: Inference-time latency from \"Prune‑and‑Grow\" retrieval strategy.**\n\nTo investigate this point, we compare CAM's Prune-and-Grow retrieval with two common retrieval strategies (used in the baseline methods): Hierarchical Traversal (HT) and Global Retrieval (GR). To fully address your concern, we also isolate the impact of LLM selection by evaluating CAM with two non-LLM graph traversal strategies: Breadth-First Search (BFS) and Personalized PageRank (PPR). We report the inference performance (F1 for MH-RAG, R-L for others) / average time (in seconds) below.\n\n|Retrieval Methods|NovelQA|QMSum|MH-RAG|ODSum-Story|\n|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|\n|Prune-and-Grow|**25.4** / 7|**26.5** / 5|**77.5** / 8|**25.5** / 7|\n|HT|23.2 / 8|24.8 / 5|72.5 / 10|23.8 / 9|\n|GR|24.5 / 2|25.7 / 1|75.9 / 2|24.4 / 2|\n|BFS|23.3 / 3|24.7 / 2|75.4 / 3|23.5 / 3|\n|PPR|24.0 / 4|25.2 / 3|76.2 / 5|23.9 / 4|\n\nWe observe that while the LLM-based retrieval incurs moderate overhead in response time, it brings consistently favorable performance gains beyond the baselines and non-LLM variants. The Prune-and-Grow process can effectively filter irrelevant memory nodes, resulting in more focused activation sets and improved downstream generation. Once the activation set stabilizes, the memory exploration then stop early to avoid unnecessary computation.\n\nMoreover, we would like to clarify that **CAM is not tied to a specific retrieval strategy**; rather, **it is inherently compatible with various retrieval methods**, allowing users to choose the most suitable one based on their latency and performance requirements in real-world applications.\n>### **Q3: Trade-off between positional bias and semantic relevance.**\n\nThis balance is explicitly controlled by the **hyperparameter $\\alpha$** in the similarity scoring function (Equation 2). When $\\alpha = 1$, the influence of positional bias is fully removed, and chunk relevance is computed purely based on semantic similarity, which would facilitate the retrieval of spatially distant yet topically related segments.\n\nIncorporating positional bias helps maintain discourse coherence and improves retrieval of local context, aligning with human reading behavior where adjacent sentences are semantically cohesive. To quantify this effect, we conduct **a sensitivity analysis across different $\\alpha$ values**, summarized below:\n\n|$\\alpha$|NovelQA (R-L)|QMSum (R-L)|MH-RAG (F1)|ODSum-Story (R-L)|\n|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|\n|0.5|**26.1**|25.3|74.7|25.3|\n|0.7|25.4|26.5|77.5|**25.5**|\n|0.9|23.5|**26.7**|**78.3**|24.7|\n|1.0|23.2|26.2|77.9|24.5|\n\nTo more thoroughly address your concern about hyperparameter robustness, we also provide a broader sensitivity analysis in our response to your **Q7**.\n>### **Q4: Handling of contradictory information.**\n\nWe agree that the ability to detect and reconcile conflicting or contradictory information is a critical aspect of human cognition. Consistent with prior LLM-based memory systems such as GraphRAG, RAPTOR, and MemTree, our current framework assumes that source information is generally consistent and focuses on the memory development process. We consider memory reconciliation as a highly promising direction for future memory research, and promise to include a clear discussion of this point in our final version.\n>### **Q5: Discussion on the effects of \"Ego-Centric Disentanglement\".**\n\n**Effects.** Ego-Centric Disentanglement is central to CAM’s ability to form coherent and nuanced memory abstractions. Its core motivation lies in capturing the semantic multifacetedness of complex text chunks---each chunk often relates to multiple themes, topics, or concepts. By replicating nodes based on their local semantic neighborhoods, CAM allows a single chunk to contribute to multiple higher-level abstractions, enabling more comprehensive and context-sensitive summarization.\n\n**Does it lead to redundancy in the final retrieved context?** No. At inference time, chunk-level duplicates are automatically de-duplicated (based on unique chunk IDs). While multiple higher-level nodes may reference the same original chunk, these abstract nodes originate from distinct semantic clusters, making them meaningfully differentiated. To quantify this, we compute **pairwise semantic similarity** among all node embeddings in the memory structure, and the average results demonstrate low semantic redundancy:\n\n||NovelQA|QMSum|MH-RAG|ODSum-Story|\n|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|\n|_Avg. Pair Similarity_|0.27|0.32|0.18|0.21|\n\n**Does managing a replica graph impact retrieval efficiency or memory footprint?** No. The replica graph is a **logical concept** used to disentangle semantic roles during memory summarization. It does not result in physically duplicating memory content or embedding storage.\n\n**A Qualitative Example.** To fully address your concern, we further present a qualitative example to demonstrate the flexibility enabled by Ego-Centric Disentanglement. The example is drawn from the long-form novel _Jane Eyre_ and involves a comprehensive question that requires integrating multiple semantically distant chunks of information, as detailed below.\n```\nQuestion: Why does Jane leave Thornfield after her wedding is interrupted?\nEvidence Pieces: \n- Jane discovers that Rochester is already married (factual revelation).\n- She experiences intense internal moral conflict about staying (psychological theme).\n- She reflects on religious and spiritual values (spiritual/ethical dimension).\n- She asserts her personal independence and dignity (character development arc).\n\n[Without Flexibility]\nResponse: Jane leaves Thornfield because she finds out Rochester is already married. ❌\n(This answer is semantically shallow, missing Jane’s inner struggle, moral reasoning, and identity preservation---these themes are essential to the novel’s integrity.)\n\n[With Flexibility]\nResponse: Jane leaves Thornfield not only because of Rochester’s hidden marriage, but also because staying would betray her moral and spiritual convictions. Despite her love, she chooses self-respect and integrity, fearing the loss of her identity. ✔️\n```\n>### **Q6: Dynamic robustness of CAM to batch order.**\n\nFollowing your advice, we conduct a new experimental analysis to evaluate CAM's dynamic robustness to **_random_** batch order. We report the **memory statistics** (branching factor) / **inference performance** (F1 for MH-RAG, R-L for others) under each configuration, which are **averaged over five runs**.\n\n|Method|NovelQA|QMSum|MH-RAG|ODSum-Story|\n|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|\n|MemTree-1|3.5±1.8 / 18.6±3.2|4.2±1.6 / 20.2±2.7|3.2±1.9 / 69.7±2.4|4.6±2.2 / 20.4±3.5|\n|CAM-1|5.4±0.9 / 23.3±1.5|5.7±0.8 / 24.2±1.0|6.5±0.8 / 74.3±1.2|6.3±1.2 / 22.8±1.4|\n|CAM-100|5.9±0.5 / 24.2±1.0|6.2±0.8 / 25.3±0.7|7.8±0.5 / 75.0±1.1|7.3±0.9 / 23.5±0.8|\n|CAM-300|5.8±0.5 / 24.7±0.8|6.4±0.5 / 25.7±0.5|7.5±0.6 / 76.2±0.8|7.0±0.7 / 24.4±0.7|\n\nWe observe that:  \n(1) Even with batch size = 1, CAM yields more stable memory structures and inference performance than MemTree, confirming the effectiveness of flexible assimilation and dynamic accommodation in our framework.  \n(2) As the batch size increases, CAM inherently benefits from a broader contextual view, thereby further reducing the memory variations across different batch orders.\n>### **Q7: Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis.**\n\nTo assess the robustness of CAM with respect to the key hyperparameters (i.e., $\\alpha$, $\\sigma$, and $\\theta$), we conduct a sensitivity analysis using 100 randomly sampled validation instances from each dataset. The performance results (**averaged over three runs**) across different hyperparameter combinations are summarized below:\n\n|$\\alpha$|$\\sigma$|$\\theta$|NovelQA (R-L)|QMSum (R-L)|FABLES (F1)|MH-RAG (F1)|ODSum-Story (R-L)|ODSum-Meeting (R-L)|Avg.|\n|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|:-:|\n|0.5|1.0|0.5|25.5|24.7|**53.2**|74.2|24.5|21.3|37.2|\n|0.5|1.0|0.7|**26.1**|25.3|52.9|74.7|25.3|22.6|37.8|\n|0.5|2.0|0.5|24.3|24.2|52.6|75.3|24.4|21.5|37.1|\n|0.5|2.0|0.7|24.8|24.3|52.3|75.5|24.8|22.9|37.4|\n|0.7|1.0|0.5|25.2|26.0|52.7|77.1|24.9|21.8|38.0|\n|0.7|1.0|0.7|25.4|26.5|52.5|77.5|**25.5**|23.2|**38.4**|\n|0.7|2.0|0.5|24.0|25.8|52.2|76.4|24.6|22.4|37.6|\n|0.7|2.0|0.7|24.4|26.2|51.8|77.0|25.1|**23.5**|38.0|\n|0.9|1.0|0.5|23.1|26.0|51.5|77.6|24.3|21.0|37.3|\n|0.9|1.0|0.7|23.5|**26.7**|51.1|**78.3**|24.7|22.6|37.8|\n|0.9|2.0|0.5|22.9|26.2|51.4|77.9|24.2|20.9|37.2|\n|0.9|2.0|0.7|23.3|26.5|50.8|78.2|24.5|21.7|37.5|\n\nWe observe that:  \n(1) For narrative datasets (e.g., NovelQA and FABLES), incorporating positional proximity (lower $\\alpha$) is beneficial, as the adjacent sentences are semantically cohesive.  \n(2) The performance is relatively robust to $\\sigma$ across datasets, and the sharper decay setting ($\\sigma$ = 1.0) generally outperforms the flatter alternative ($\\sigma$ = 2.0).  \n(3) $\\theta$ controls the density of the foundational semantic network and shows the dataset-specific sensitivity.\n\n**We sincerely promise to incorporate the above experiments and discussions into our final version. We hope that these responses have addressed your concerns, and would greatly appreciate it if you could kindly raise the scores accordingly. Your support really means a great deal to us.**"}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: This paper proposed a new way to organize the memory of an LLM agent so it can handle very long context effectively and efficiently. The method has a clear root in the Constructivist theory of Jean Piaget. It has three key traits: structured schemata, flexible assimilation and dynamic accommodation. The method works as a hierarchical overlapping summarization and online batch integration. Experiments showed that the method has strong performance in diverse long context tasks. The implementation is also efficient, adding to the paper's practical application value.

Paper strength

Important problem: effective use of long context is an important topic in the application of LLMs. 
Solid theoretical root. This is not just a trial-n-error empirical construction but with more structured thinking in the design and backed by a widely understood theory framework.
Strong performance over a variety of tasks. It's not limited to a narrow domain or type of task.
Practical value brought by the efficient implementation.

Paper weakness

Not able to handle contradictory information that feeds into the memory. Although the author has a point that most long context tasks now usually assume the coherence and correctness of the context, it doesn't remove the weakness. Reviewers are not fully convinced by this argument.

Use of LLM to do summarization is a critical dependency on a blackbox-like system. The author is right to say that this is a common practice; the strong performance with existing LLM partly elevates the concern too. AC suggests to get a better understanding on the minimal capability characteristic of a blackbox LLM to support the method, and/or find a way to "certify" a LLM. 

Most of the other weakness in the original submission have been addressed by the rebuttal process with factual new information. For example the experiments on more conventional benchmarks, hyperparameter sensitivity, sensitivity to batch order etc. The reviewers are convinced.

Reviewers also called out that the time left for the authors to rewrite the paper with new evidence is quite limited.

Given all information, AC tends to accept the paper, due to the benefit of sharing this principled way to construct agent memory is larger than bearing the unaddressed weakness (given that the weakness will be clearly stated in the final version).

AC appreciates the author's great efforts in answering questions from the reviewers and running additional experiments.
Decision: Accept (poster)