Is Complex Agentic Memory Always Needed? Naive RAG Is Stronger Than We Thought
Abstract
Raw retrieval-augmented generation over unprocessed conversation history outperforms complex agentic memory systems across multiple benchmarks, indicating that preserving raw evidence is more critical than elaborate memory transformations.
LLM memory is widely used in long-term conversation understanding. Agentic memory systems often use mutation, structural organization, learned retrieval strategies, or other complex operations. Is this complexity always necessary? We study Raw-RAG, a naive RAG baseline using dense retrieval and reranking over raw history to supply evidence to a reader LLM. Across LoCoMo, LongMemEval, MEME, and MemoryAgentBench, Raw-RAG ranks first among the compared memory systems in six of seven benchmark-model settings, outperforming the strongest compared agentic memory system by 0.13-5.53 points. We investigate why raw-history retrieval remains competitive. Evidence analysis shows that its higher coverage of necessary evidence can offset lower utilization. Useful evidence includes both answer values and the relations and dependency paths needed to derive them. Even complete access to transformed memory stores leaves an accuracy gap relative to raw evidence, highlighting the importance of preserving raw information. These findings challenge the necessity of complex agentic memory for the evaluated conversation tasks and establish naive RAG as an essential baseline.
Community
RAW-RAG challenges the necessity of complex agentic memory for long-term conversation understanding. By combining dense retrieval and reranking over raw history, it ranks first among compared memory systems in six of seven settings across four benchmarks. Its analyses highlight evidence coverage and relational completeness as key drivers of performance, establishing naive RAG as an essential baseline.
The finding that full access to transformed memory stores still trails raw evidence matches what I would expect when the summarization step drops relations. Which retriever and reranker sizes did Raw-RAG use? If both are small embedding models, this baseline is also the cheapest one to run on a local box, which makes the result more useful in practice. Did you try a smaller reader model to see if the gap over agentic memory holds when the reader is weaker?
Thanks! The main-table Raw-RAG results use text-embedding-3-small + Cohere Rerank-v3.5. In Appendix A, we report an alternative using Qwen3-Embedding-4B + Qwen3-Reranker-4B, achieving broadly comparable performance to the OpenAI/Cohere configuration. We haven’t tested smaller reader models yet, but we’re also curious whether the advantage holds with weaker readers. We’d like to explore this in future experiments. Thanks for the suggestion!
The finding that even full access to the transformed memory store leaves a gap versus raw evidence is a strong argument for keeping the originals. Summaries are convenient, but the relations and dependency paths you need to derive an answer seem to be what gets lost first.
Get this paper in your agent:
hf papers read 2610.30755 Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash Models citing this paper 0
No model linking this paper
Datasets citing this paper 0
No dataset linking this paper
Spaces citing this paper 0
No Space linking this paper
Collections including this paper 0
No Collection including this paper