arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv 2603.02473cs.AI

诊断LLM代理记忆中的检索与利用瓶颈

Diagnosing Retrieval vs. Utilization Bottlenecks in LLM Agent Memory

University of California, San Diego(加利福尼亚大学圣迭戈分校);Carnegie Mellon University(卡内基梅隆大学);University of North Carolina(北卡罗来纳大学)

Boqin Yuan, Yue Su, Kun Yao

AI总结:

本文通过3x3实验分析写入策略、检索方法和记忆利用行为对性能的影响,发现检索方法是主要瓶颈,且原始分块存储在无需LLM调用时表现优异。

摘要:

记忆增强的LLM代理存储和检索先前交互信息,但记忆写入与检索的重要性尚不明确。本文引入诊断框架,分析性能差异在写入策略、检索方法和记忆利用行为中的表现,并应用于3x3研究,交叉三种写入策略(原始分块、Mem0式事实提取、MemGPT式总结)与三种检索方法(余弦、BM25、混合重排序)。在LoCoMo中,检索方法是主导因素:平均准确率在检索方法间跨度20点(57.1%至77.2%),而在写入策略间仅3-8点。原始分块存储无需LLM调用,表现匹配或优于昂贵的损失性替代方案,表明当前记忆管道可能丢弃有用上下文,下游检索机制无法补偿。失败分析显示,性能下降大多出现在检索阶段而非利用阶段。本文认为,在当前检索实践中,提高检索质量带来的收益大于增加写入时复杂度。代码在https://github.com/boqiny/memory-probe公开。

英文摘要:

Memory-augmented LLM agents store and retrieve information from prior interactions, yet the relative importance of how memories are written versus how they are retrieved remains unclear. We introduce a diagnostic framework that analyzes how performance differences manifest across write strategies, retrieval methods, and memory utilization behavior, and apply it to a 3x3 study crossing three write strategies (raw chunks, Mem0-style fact extraction, MemGPT-style summarization) with three retrieval methods (cosine, BM25, hybrid reranking). On LoCoMo, retrieval method is the dominant factor: average accuracy spans 20 points across retrieval methods (57.1% to 77.2%) but only 3-8 points across write strategies. Raw chunked storage, which requires zero LLM calls, matches or outperforms expensive lossy alternatives, suggesting that current memory pipelines may discard useful context that downstream retrieval mechanisms fail to compensate for. Failure analysis shows that performance breakdowns most often manifest at the retrieval stage rather than at utilization. We argue that, under current retrieval practices, improving retrieval quality yields larger gains than increasing write-time sophistication. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/boqiny/memory-probe.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑