arXiv preprint ·
Do Personalized LLMs Need the Whole Conversation? Matching the Full History with Only 5% of Its Text via Relevance-Filtered Context
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Personalized assistants accumulate long conversation histories, and passing the whole history to an LLM with every request is costly. We show that it is also unnecessary. On PersonaMem-v2 (180 questions), with GPT-5.6-terra and Claude Opus 5.5 as judges, a relevance-filtered context, built by sentence-level retrieval that ranks the history by similarity to the current request and stops at a fixed budget, matches full-history accuracy with only 5% of the text, cutting the judge's input about 20-fold. An LLM summary of the same length performs on par, but it needs an LLM to read the entire history, whereas retrieval needs only a small embedding model. While both sentence-level retrieval and LLM summary perform strongly, retrieval does so while placing the relevant evidence in the context for only 61% of the questions, and an oracle given only that evidence beats the full history by 15.6 points, making better context selection a promising path to surpassing the full history.
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
Scaling Laws for Multimodal Data Mixtures
Sequent-Prover: Training Agents for Formal, Checkable SMT-based Reasoning
MemForm: Benchmarking Memory Formation Poisoning in LLM Agents
Do correct answers have stable latent knowledge support?
Neither True nor False: Do LLMs Represent Truth-Value Gaps in Plural Predication?
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.