arXiv preprint ·
MemStrata: 95% and 90.91% Source-Aware Accuracy on LongMemEval-500 and LoCoMo-1540 with a Local Qwen 3.8 27B Q4_K_M Reader
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
An adequate conversational answer may differ from a short or incomplete benchmark reference. To measure adequacy against the recorded history we prefer source-aware grading, in which the judge checks the reference against the full source before assessing system-blinded answers; original reference-only grading is reported alongside. With a local Qwen 3.8 27B Q4_K_M reader and a 24,000-token evidence ceiling, MemStrata CL1 scores 475/500 (95.0%) on LongMemEval-S and 1,400/1,540 (90.91%) on LoCoMo categories 1-4 under source-aware GPT-5.5 adjudication, against 463/500 (92.6%) and 1,205/1,540 (78.25%) under reference-only grading of the same answers. It preserves a retrieval backbone and adds nonduplicated, dated, speaker-attributed source spans. A same-reader full-history control with about 4.7 times the evidence scores 464/500 reference-only and 470/500 (94.0%) source-aware; neither difference is decisive. Keyword-only selection at the same budget scores 425, and a matched-reader Letta arm 438. On LongMemEval-M, where the packet holds about 1.6% of each history, MemStrata CL1 scores 427/500, with losses concentrated in multi-session and temporal questions. On 300 BEAM-1M questions it outscores dense retrieval, 0.738 to 0.706 (Wilcoxon p = 0.011). A same-seed replay of unchanged requests changed 1.5-2.3% of labels. On identical packets GLM 5.3 flash is non-inferior within 3 points (462 versus 463); Muse Spark 1.3 did not show non-inferiority on 269 questions. None of four pre-registered interventions met all of its registered advancement or feasibility criteria. Signed read-side artifacts support inspection but do not regenerate the private retrieval pipeline. The superiority of source-aware grading to human adjudication is not established, and development exposure, automated-judge dependence and the absence of held-out data preclude an independent-replication or leaderboard claim.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Computation & Language / NLP
ModelLakeFishing: Efficient Retrieval over Million-Scale Model Lakes
Generate What You Can Trust: Content Credibility in Generative Recommenders
Do We Still Need Gazetteers in the Era of LLMs? Chaining Retrieval with a Spatial Neuro-Symbolic Index
Errors of LLM-Assisted Literature Retrieval in Environmental Science: A Comparison Study of Abstract versus Full-text Based Prompts
Agentic RAG Evaluation: Budget Allocation Across Questions, Trajectories, and Reads
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.