Qiyang Xie

Qiyang Xie, Jialun Wu, Xinjie He et al.

AI systems increasingly need to combine two demanding capabilities: navigating multi-session conversation history and performing deep reading comprehension within long documents. Yet no existing benchmark evaluates both simultaneously. We introduce MemoryDocDataSet, a synthetic benchmark of 50 micro-worlds and 1,000 QA pairs in which each instance comprises 3-5 personas, a temporal event graph spanning months of activity, 3-5 real long documents (20,000-50,000 tokens each sourced from the Caselaw Access Project), multi-session conversations grounded on those documents, and 20 question-answer pairs across five reasoning categories. The defining feature is the Hybrid source tag: questions requiring a system to first navigate conversation history to identify which document is relevant, then extract the answer from within that document. Hybrid questions account for 75.1% of the dataset. Dataset quality is characterised through a prompt-sensitivity self-consistency analysis using LLM-as-judge, yielding a median Cohen's $κ= 0.634$ across all 50 micro-worlds. We evaluate six baseline configurations spanning truncated context, long-context LLMs, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and memory systems. The best baseline (RAG-Both) achieves 0.358 overall F1 and 0.342 on Hybrid. Document-only retrieval (RAG-Doc) collapses to 0.267 on Hybrid despite achieving 0.453 on Doc-only questions, demonstrating a clear joint-retrieval gap that motivates architectures unifying conversational memory with long-document navigation. We release the dataset, generation pipeline, and all baseline implementations.

Shuai Xiao, Su Liu, Weikai Zhou et al.

Persona prompting is widely used to steer large language models, yet its practical value remains unclear. Prior work often evaluates persona prompting using aggregate scores, making it difficult to determine whether expert-role prompting consistently improves response quality or instead changes responses along different quality dimensions. We study this question through a controlled comparison of four prompting conditions across 1,140 open-ended questions spanning 38 expert roles and six domains: no role prompt, a generic domain-expert prompt, embedding-based role retrieval, and a hybrid retrieval method combining embedding search with LLM-based role selection. Aggregate results show only small overall differences between conditions. However, metric-level analysis reveals a consistent tradeoff that aggregate averages obscure: role prompting systematically increases expertise depth while reducing clarity. These effects are highly conditional rather than universal. Role prompting performs best on advisory questions and in domains such as medicine and psychology, where structured expert framing and risk communication are intrinsically valuable. In contrast, baseline prompting performs better on conceptual and explanatory questions in finance, legal, science, and technology domains, where concise plain-language explanation is more important. We further show that hybrid retrieval significantly improves over embedding-only role selection, although better role retrieval does not eliminate the broader expertise-depth versus clarity tradeoff. Overall, our findings suggest that persona prompting primarily reshapes response characteristics rather than broadly improving capability, and that multi-metric evaluation is necessary for understanding its effects.

Xinjie He, Zhiyuan Lin, Su Liu et al.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a viable recipe for training LLM agents to reason over external memory banks in multi-session dialogue. Existing work trains exclusively on a single benchmark, leaving open how the composition of training data shapes the skills a memory agent acquires. We present a controlled empirical study that holds architecture, RL algorithm, and all hyperparameters fixed and varies only the training curriculum across three conditions: in-domain (LoCoMo), mixed-benchmark (LoCoMo + LongMemEval), and out-of-domain (LongMemEval only). Across two benchmarks and ten question types, curriculum composition acts as a fine-grained lever on specialization rather than a uniform scaling factor on performance. The mixed curriculum yields the strongest overall F1 on both evaluation sets. Training on a narrow out-of-domain set transfers a targeted skill - temporal reasoning - despite weak aggregate performance. Per-type differences substantially exceed aggregate differences, indicating that single-number benchmark comparisons systematically underreport curriculum effects. We further report two practical lessons from adapting GRPO to a single-GPU regime: cross-benchmark mixing requires filtering format-specific noise from memory banks to preserve training signal, and binary exact-match reward produces no learning signal at the small group sizes (G = 4) required on one GPU, motivating continuous reward functions in this regime.