recursively-summarizing-dialogue-into-running-memory-improves-consistency CLM-0128mechanismsingle paperReviewed by AI and Russ Miller
Recursively summarizing the dialogue into a running memory improves consistency in long conversations.
Capability: Remembering across sessions
Sources
- Recursively summarizing the dialogue into a running memory improves consistency in long conversations.
Either way, bring evidence: a link, or what you saw.
Disagreeing is the most useful thing you can do here. Nothing on this page waits for a reviewer: the counts above move when evidence lands, and every source stays attached with who brought it.
Related claims
- For conversational long-term memory with 8-14B backbones and plain top-K dense retrieval, writing each dialogue span into several complementary low-overlap semantic views before indexing retrieves gold evidence for more queries than structured extraction into a single view, and the advantage is largest at small retrieval budgets.Remembering across sessions · reviewed by AI
- A tiered memory system managed by the model itself sustains recall over conversations far longer than the context window.Remembering across sessions
- When accurate retrieved context is supplied at every turn of a three-turn dialogue, model scores still fall as each turn adds a condition or constraint on how the retrieved material must be used, and models that score alike on plain multi-turn chat diverge on retrieval-grounded turns, so using retrieval well is a distinct competence from chatting well.Using what was retrieved, and only that · reviewed by AI
- For streaming video question answering with a frozen video-LLM, appending retrieved historical frames as extra visual context helps less than optimizing a small set of latent memory tokens at test time and then dropping the retrieved tokens before decoding; the gain is largest on questions requiring backward tracing over past history.Reasoning about time in video · reviewed by AI
- For spoken language models answering questions over long dialogue histories, converting the history to transcripts beats keeping it as audio when the answer is a lexical detail (exact slot values across dense turns: mean 71.3% vs 42.6%), but loses when the answer depends on how something was said, where audio history wins for six of seven models and by a larger margin once lexical emotion cues are removed.Understanding speech and audio · reviewed by AI