# Do Personalized LLMs Need the Whole Conversation? Matching the Full History with Only 5% of Its Text via Relevance-Filtered Context

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.14952 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.14952/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 10 Oct 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.11401/) (2020)
- [Lost in the Middle: How Language Models Use Long Contexts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.03172/) (2023)
- [MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.08560/) (2023)
- [RULER: What's the Real Context Size of Your Long-Context Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.06654/) (2024)
- [Evaluating Very Long-Term Conversational Memory of LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.17753/) (2024)
- [LongMemEval: Benchmarking Chat Assistants on Long-Term Interactive Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.10813/) (2024)
- [LaMP: When Large Language Models Meet Personalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.11406/) (2023)
- [Know Me, Respond to Me: Benchmarking LLMs for Dynamic User Profiling and Personalized Responses at Scale](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.14225/) (2025)
- [Do LLMs Recognize Your Preferences? Evaluating Personalized Preference Following in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.09597/) (2025)
- [PersonaMem-v2: Towards Personalized Intelligence via Learning Implicit User Personas and Agentic Memory](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.06688/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Personalized assistants accumulate long conversation histories, and passing the whole history to an LLM with every request is costly. We show that it is also unnecessary. On PersonaMem-v2 (180 questions), with GPT-5.6-terra and Claude Opus 5.5 as judges, a relevance-filtered context, built by sentence-level retrieval that ranks the history by similarity to the current request and stops at a fixed budget, matches full-history accuracy with only 5% of the text, cutting the judge's input about 20-fold. An LLM summary of the same length performs on par, but it needs an LLM to read the entire history, whereas retrieval needs only a small embedding model. While both sentence-level retrieval and LLM summary perform strongly, retrieval does so while placing the relevant evidence in the context for only 61% of the questions, and an oracle given only that evidence beats the full history by 15.6 points, making better context selection a promising path to surpassing the full history.