mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

SocialMemBench: Are AI Memory Systems Ready for Social Group Settings?

arXiv 2605.17789 ↗First posted 18 May 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Memory systems for AI assistants were built for single-user dialogue and fail characteristically when applied to multi-party social group settings. This gap matters for the social assistants being built today: group-acting agents embedded in chat platforms, and proactive personal-assistant agents whose holistic model of a user must include their social context. Existing memory benchmarks evaluate dyadic or workplace dialogue; none targets multi-party social groups, where memory must anchor facts in shared history rather than professional roles, separate group norms from individual exceptions, and correctly attribute even after member departure. We introduce SocialMemBench, a benchmark of human-verified synthetic social group networks across five archetypes (close friends, family, recreational, interest community, acquaintance network) and three group-size tiers (4-30 members), with 430 personas and 7,355 conversation turns, yielding 1,031 QA pairs across nine question categories. Each category isolates an architectural capability, and the five failure modes (single-stream conflation, temporal-state overwrite, entity merging at scale, missing cross-persona knowledge, norm-individual conflation) are testable hypotheses; our two research probes Subject-Mem and SMG provide evidence on two, three remain open. A full-context Gemini 2.5 Flash reference reaches only 0.721 against a blind-critic reasoning-model mean of 0.98 on small networks, indicating the benchmark is genuinely difficult even with complete access to the conversation. Across all 43 networks, the four open-source memory frameworks evaluated (Mem0, LangMem, Graphiti, Cognee) cluster in the 0.12-0.18 question-weighted range with overlapping 95% CIs, well below an uncompressed retrieval reference of 0.345 and a matched-answerer full-context reference of 0.369 (GPT-4o-mini). Current memory systems show a measurable gap.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 May 2026.

Builds on

15 of 30 references.

References · 15

  1. 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,626
  2. 2022Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Models with Self-Generated Instructionscited by 2,724
  3. 2024RULER: What's the Real Context Size of Your Long-Context Language Models?cited by 1,346
  4. 2018Personalizing Dialogue Agents: I have a dog, do you have pets too?cited by 828
  5. 2025Mem0: Building Production-Ready AI Agents with Scalable Long-Term Memorycited by 779
  6. 2024LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memorycited by 707
  7. 2024A Survey on the Memory Mechanism of Large Language Model based Agentscited by 634
  8. 2023LaMP: When Large Language Models Meet Personalizationcited by 437
  9. 2021Beyond Goldfish Memory: Long-Term Open-Domain Conversationcited by 267
  10. 2023Understanding Social Reasoning in Language Models with Language Modelscited by 172
  11. 2023FANToM: A Benchmark for Stress-testing Machine Theory of Mind in Interactionscited by 171
  12. 2022SCROLLS: Standardized CompaRison Over Long Language Sequencescited by 170
3 more
  1. 2022SODA: Million-scale Dialogue Distillation with Social Commonsense Contextualizationcited by 168
  2. 2023Minding Language Models' (Lack of) Theory of Mind: A Plug-and-Play Multi-Character Belief Trackercited by 95
  3. 2026Evaluating Long-Horizon Memory for Multi-Party Collaborative Dialoguescited by 22

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.