# Drawing on Memory: Dual-Trace Encoding Improves Cross-Session Recall in LLM Agents

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.12948 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.12948/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 5 of its 11 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Apr 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reasoning for agents, planning and code](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reasoning-for-agents-planning-and-code/)
- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent memory systems](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-memory-systems/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behavior](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.03442/) (2023)
- [MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08560/) (2023)
- [Evaluating Very Long-Term Conversational Memory of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17753/) (2024)
- [Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.19413/) (2025)
- [LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10813/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

LLM agents with persistent memory store information as flat factual records, providing little context for temporal reasoning, change tracking, or cross-session aggregation. Inspired by the drawing effect [3], we introduce dual-trace memory encoding. In this method, each stored fact is paired with a concrete scene trace, a narrative reconstruction of the moment and context in which the information was learned. The agent is forced to commit to specific contextual details during encoding, creating richer, more distinctive memory traces. Using the LongMemEval-S benchmark (4,575 sessions, 100 recall questions), we compare dual-trace encoding against a fact-only control with matched coverage and format over 99 shared questions. Dual-trace achieves 73.7% overall accuracy versus 53.5%, a +20.2 percentage point (pp) gain (95% CI: [+12.1, +29.3], bootstrap p < 0.0001). Gains concentrate in temporal reasoning (+40pp), knowledge-update tracking (+25pp), and multi-session aggregation (+30pp), with no benefit for single-session retrieval, consistent with encoding specificity theory [8]. Token analysis shows dual-trace encoding achieves this gain at no additional cost. We additionally sketch an architectural design for adapting dual-trace encoding to coding agents, with preliminary pilot validation.