Learning Query-Aware Budget-Tier Routing for Runtime Agent Memory
Abstract: Memory is increasingly central to LLM agents operating beyond a single context window, yet most existing systems rely on offline, query-agnostic memory construction that can be inefficient and may discard query-critical information. Although runtime memory utilization is a natural alternative, prior work often incurs substantial overhead and offers limited explicit control over the performance-cost trade-off. In this work, we present \textbf{BudgetMem}, a runtime agent memory framework for explicit, query-aware performance-cost control. BudgetMem structures memory processing as a set of memory modules, each offered in three budget tiers (i.e., \textsc{Low}/\textsc{Mid}/\textsc{High}). A lightweight router performs budget-tier routing across modules to balance task performance and memory construction cost, which is implemented as a compact neural policy trained with reinforcement learning. Using BudgetMem as a unified testbed, we study three complementary strategies for realizing budget tiers: implementation (method complexity), reasoning (inference behavior), and capacity (module model size). Across LoCoMo, LongMemEval, and HotpotQA, BudgetMem surpasses strong baselines when performance is prioritized (i.e., high-budget setting), and delivers better accuracy-cost frontiers under tighter budgets. Moreover, our analysis disentangles the strengths and weaknesses of different tiering strategies, clarifying when each axis delivers the most favorable trade-offs under varying budget regimes.
Paper Prompts
Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.
Top Community Prompts
Explain it Like I'm 14
Overview
This paper introduces BudgetMem, a new way for AI assistants (powered by LLMs) to use “memory” at the exact moment they need it, while keeping costs under control. Instead of building one big memory ahead of time that may not fit every question, BudgetMem builds just the right memory for the current question and lets you choose how much “effort” (and cost) to spend. It does this by breaking memory processing into small steps and picking, for each step, a Low/Mid/High “budget tier” that balances quality and cost.
Key Objectives
The paper tries to answer two simple questions:
- How can an AI decide, in real time, how much work to do to prepare the best memory for a specific question?
- Which kinds of “budget knobs” (how you implement a step, how much reasoning you do, or how big a model you use) give the best trade-off between high-quality answers and low cost?
How They Did It (Methods)
The Memory Pipeline
Think of the AI’s past conversations and notes like a giant messy binder. When a new question arrives, BudgetMem runs a small, organized pipeline to build a mini memory tailored to that question:
- Filter: Pick out the most relevant pages (chunks) for the question.
- Extract (in parallel): Pull out key details from those pages in three ways:
- Entity module: People, places, and things involved.
- Temporal module: What happened when (timelines, dates).
- Topic module: What the main subjects are.
- Summarize: Combine those pieces into a short, focused memory the AI can use to answer.
Budget Tiers (Low/Mid/High)
Each pipeline step (module) can be run in Low, Mid, or High mode:
- Implementation tiering: Use different tools.
- Low: Quick rules or simple patterns (fast, cheap).
- Mid: A small trained model (balanced).
- High: A powerful LLM step (best quality, higher cost).
- Reasoning tiering: Use different thinking styles.
- Low: Answer directly (minimal extra thought).
- Mid: Show steps (chain-of-thought).
- High: Multi-step with reflection and self-checks.
- Capacity tiering: Use different model sizes.
- Low: Smaller model.
- Mid: Medium model.
- High: Larger model.
Imagine choosing between a quick skim, a careful read, or a deep study session—BudgetMem does this choice at each step, based on the question.
The Router (Learned Decision-Maker)
BudgetMem has a small “router” model that decides which tier (Low/Mid/High) to use for each module as it goes. It looks at:
- The question,
- What’s already been filtered or extracted,
- Which module it’s about to run.
It learns a policy using reinforcement learning (RL): it gets a high reward for correct answers and a penalty for spending too much budget. Over time, it learns smart tier choices that give good answers for reasonable cost.
Measuring Cost and Training the Router
- Cost is measured by how many tokens the system sends to and gets back from LLMs (converted to dollars using API prices).
- Rewards mix “answer quality” and “cost savings.” To keep training fair, the paper normalizes cost and uses a simple scale alignment so neither term overwhelms the other.
They train the router with PPO (a standard RL algorithm) and test BudgetMem on three benchmarks: LoCoMo, LongMemEval, and HotpotQA.
Main Findings
These are the key results, explained simply:
- Stronger answers when quality is the priority: In “high-budget” mode, BudgetMem beats other memory systems on correctness (F1 and an LLM-judge score) across all three datasets.
- Better trade-offs when budgets are tight: As you lower the budget, BudgetMem smoothly adjusts and often gets better accuracy at the same cost—or lower cost for similar accuracy—than competing methods.
- Three tiering styles behave differently:
- Implementation and capacity tiering give wide control over costs (they’re good for very low or very high budgets).
- Reasoning tiering is a fine-grained quality knob within a narrower cost band (great for polishing answers without spending a lot more).
- The router’s choices make sense: As you emphasize cost more, it picks Low tiers more often across modules, proving it’s cost-aware.
- Training details matter: If you don’t balance the reward scales, the router collapses to always pick Low tiers (cheap but poor answers). With proper alignment, it learns smooth, sensible trade-offs.
- Retrieval size sweet spot: Grabbing too many chunks raises cost and can add noise; too few misses evidence. In their tests, around 5 chunks hit a good balance.
Why It Matters
LLM agents often need memory to handle long conversations, personal preferences, or complex questions. Many systems build memory offline in one fixed way, which can waste effort and miss critical details for specific questions. BudgetMem flips this: it builds memory on demand, tailored to the question, and gives clear controls over how much to spend. That’s important for real apps where time and money matter (like customer support or personal assistants).
Implications and Impact
- Practical control: Teams can set clear budget policies—fast and cheap for simple queries, deeper and pricier for harder ones—and trust the system to follow them.
- Flexible design: Developers can use different knobs (implementation, reasoning, capacity) depending on their goals and constraints.
- Broad applicability: BudgetMem can plug into various pipelines and models, helping AI assistants stay accurate while respecting cost and latency limits.
- Safer, more usable memory: Because memory is built at runtime, you reduce the risk of throwing away useful information during offline pre-processing, while still keeping costs predictable.
Overall, BudgetMem shows a clear path to smarter, budget-aware memory use in AI agents: good answers when you need them, and controlled spending when you don’t.
Knowledge Gaps
Knowledge gaps, limitations, and open questions
Below is a single, concrete list of what remains missing, uncertain, or unexplored in the paper, phrased to guide future research.
- Lack of latency measurements: wall‑clock latency and tail latencies per query are not reported, despite runtime routing potentially introducing nontrivial delays beyond token cost.
- Narrow cost model: extraction cost is approximated by API token pricing and treats non‑LLM modules as negligible, omitting compute/energy, wall‑time, retrieval/indexing overhead, and router inference cost.
- No hard budget/SLA constraints: the method optimizes a soft trade‑off via λ but offers no guarantees on per‑query cost ceilings or latency SLAs; constrained RL or CMDP formulations are not explored.
- Limited domain coverage: evaluation is restricted to LoCoMo, LongMemEval, and HotpotQA; generalization to other domains (e.g., tool use, coding assistants, enterprise logs, biomedical text) is unknown.
- Language and modality scope: only English, text‑only settings are tested; behavior on multilingual, code, audio, or multimodal memories remains unstudied.
- Router transferability: transfer of a router trained with LLaMA to Qwen is shown but not systematically analyzed across more diverse backbones, tokenizers, pricing schemes, or smaller models.
- Stability and variance: there is no report of run‑to‑run variance, sensitivity to random seeds, or robustness of routing policies across training replicates.
- Reward design risks: LLM‑as‑a‑judge introduces potential bias and instability; no human evaluation or alternative reward calibration/aggregation is provided to validate Judge reliability.
- Non‑stationary cost normalization: sliding‑window quantile normalization may induce non‑stationarity in rewards; its effects on learning dynamics and convergence are not analyzed.
- Limited ablations on router architecture: the “lightweight router” design, feature choices, and capacity are underspecified; no comparison to alternative state encodings, action spaces, or supervised/bandit baselines.
- Credit assignment across modules: the RL formulation assumes per‑episode rewards; finer‑grained credit assignment to specific module decisions is not addressed.
- Interaction of tiering axes: implementation, reasoning, and capacity tiering are studied separately; joint multi‑axis tiering per module and cross‑axis interactions are not explored.
- Dynamic retrieval control: retrieval top‑K is fixed; routing over retrieval size/content as an explicit budget tier (including stopping criteria) is not incorporated.
- Retriever dependence: only Contriever is used; sensitivity to retriever quality, domain adaptation, or learned retrievers jointly trained with the router is not evaluated.
- Adversarial/noisy histories: robustness to irrelevant, misleading, or adversarial memory content and prompt‑injection in retrieved chunks is not examined.
- Scaling with pipeline complexity: effects of adding more modules, deeper module chains, or alternative pipelines (e.g., graph construction, planning modules) on routing effectiveness and cost are unknown.
- Aggregation design: the summarization module is fixed and simple; alternative aggregation mechanisms (graph fusion, citation‑aware summarization, structured consolidation) are not compared.
- Fans coupling: the answer generator fans is fixed; joint optimization or co‑adaptation of memory extraction with different answerers (sizes, reasoning styles) is not explored.
- Assumption of monotonic tier quality: tiers are presumed to improve quality with cost; conditions where higher tiers harm accuracy (e.g., over‑deliberation, hallucinations) are not characterized.
- Per‑session/global budgeting: routing is per‑query; strategies for managing cumulative budgets across sessions/users and scheduling under throughput constraints are absent.
- Safety, privacy, and compliance mechanisms: concrete methods for redaction, retention policies, data minimization, or privacy‑preserving memory extraction are not integrated or evaluated.
- Fair cost accounting vs. baselines: offline preprocessing and indexing costs of baseline systems are not standardized; cost comparisons may be biased toward runtime systems.
- Latency‑throughput serving constraints: batching, KV‑cache reuse, caching of module outputs, and rate‑limit behavior are not modeled or evaluated in realistic serving environments.
- Router observability and interpretability: there is no mechanism to explain routing decisions or provide user/dev‑facing diagnostics to debug suboptimal allocations.
- Sample‑efficiency of RL: the training cost (API calls, tokens) for learning the router is not quantified; comparison to heuristic or imitation‑learning alternatives is missing.
- Constraint violations and recovery: strategies for detecting and correcting poor routing (e.g., early exits, fallback tiers, rollback) under strict budgets are not discussed.
- Continual and non‑stationary settings: adaptation to concept drift, evolving memory stores, or changing cost/pricing conditions is not addressed (e.g., online RL or meta‑routing).
- Risk‑sensitive objectives: the framework optimizes average performance; risk measures (e.g., CVaR) for minimizing low‑tail accuracy under budget limits are not considered.
- Per‑module cost/benefit modeling: the method does not estimate marginal utility of each module’s tier choice; learned value/cost models for targeted routing could improve efficiency.
- Joint learning of chunking: chunk segmentation is fixed; adaptive segmentation as a budget lever (variable chunk sizes/overlaps) and its interaction with routing remain unexplored.
- Retrieval noise vs. evidence trade‑off: while retrieval size sensitivity is shown, principled methods to identify and down‑weight noisy chunks pre‑extraction are not investigated.
- Generalization to multi‑agent settings: coordination of budgeted memory across multiple agents or tools (shared memory stores, contention) is not studied.
- Formal guarantees: there is no theoretical analysis of optimality, regret, or approximation bounds for the router under the proposed reward shaping and normalization.
- Evaluation breadth: beyond F1/Judge and cost, user‑centric metrics (helpfulness, factuality with citations, calibration) and longitudinal performance in extended dialogues are not evaluated.
Glossary
- Ablation: An experimental procedure where a component is removed or varied to assess its effect on system performance. "Ablation of reward-scale alignment under capacity tiering strategy on LoCoMo."
- Adaptive-depth inference: A technique that adjusts the number of computational steps during inference based on confidence to reduce cost. "early-exit or adaptive-depth inference (Schuster et al., 2022)"
- Answer generator: The component that produces the final response conditioned on the query and extracted memory. "fans is an answer generator (e.g., a fixed LLM)."
- Budget regimes: Distinct operating conditions characterized by different computational budget constraints. "under varying budget regimes."
- Budget tiers: Discrete compute levels (LOW/MID/HIGH) offered per module to control quality-cost trade-offs. "three budget tiers (i.e., Low/MID/HIGH)."
- Budget-tier interface: A standardized module API that supports invoking the module under different budget tiers without changing inputs/outputs. "Each module M in the pipeline is exposed through a common budget-tier interface"
- Budget-tier routing: The process of selecting a budget tier for each module invocation during runtime to balance cost and performance. "BudgetMem learns a shared lightweight router that performs budget-tier routing"
- Capacity tiering: A strategy that varies the model size or capacity used within a module to trade off cost and quality. "capacity tiering, which varies the model capacity used inside a module"
- Chain-of-thought (CoT): A reasoning approach where models generate intermediate reasoning steps to improve accuracy. "MID: CoT-style (Wei et al., 2022)"
- Cost-aware objective: A training objective that explicitly balances task performance against computational cost. "We optimize the router under a cost-aware objective that trades off task performance and extraction cost:"
- Early-exit: An inference method that terminates computation early when sufficient confidence is reached to save resources. "early-exit or adaptive-depth inference (Schuster et al., 2022)"
- Episode (in RL): A complete run of the system for a single query, from initial state through all module decisions to final reward. "A complete run of the modular pipeline for one query constitutes an episode."
- Implementation tiering: A strategy that varies the algorithmic procedure inside a module (e.g., heuristics vs. learned models vs. LLMs). "implementation tiering, which varies the module implementation (from lightweight heuristics to learned task-specific models to LLM-based processing)"
- KV-cache: A mechanism for caching key/value tensors in transformer models to accelerate processing of long contexts. "KV-cache efficiency for long contexts"
- LLM-as-a-Judge (Judge): An evaluation method where an LLM assesses the correctness of model outputs relative to ground truth. "LLM-as-a-judge (Judge)"
- Mixture-of-experts (MoE) activation: A model design where different expert subnetworks are selectively activated to scale capacity efficiently. "mixture-of-experts activation (Shazeer et al., 2017; Fedus et al., 2022)"
- Module descriptor: A signal indicating which module is currently being routed, used as part of the router’s state. "a module descriptor indicating which module is being routed"
- On-demand memory extraction: Constructing query-relevant memory at runtime rather than precomputing offline. "an intuitive alternative is on-demand memory extraction"
- Pareto frontier: The curve of optimal trade-offs between two competing objectives (e.g., performance and cost). "BudgetMem consistently advances the Pareto frontier"
- Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO): A popular reinforcement learning algorithm for training policies with stability and sample efficiency. "We employ the Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO) (Schulman et al., 2017) as the default RL algorithm"
- Pruning/sparsity: Techniques that remove or zero out parameters to reduce model size and inference cost. "pruning/sparsity (Ma et al., 2023; Frantar & Alistarh, 2023; Sun et al., 2023)"
- Quantization: Compressing model weights or activations to lower precision to speed up inference and reduce memory. "quantization (Xiao et al., 2023a; Liu et al., 2024)"
- Reasoning tiering: A strategy that varies inference behavior (e.g., direct vs. deliberative reasoning) while keeping the model fixed. "reasoning tiering, which varies the inference behavior while keeping the underlying model backbone fixed"
- Reflection-style reasoning: Iterative self-reflection or multi-step deliberation to refine answers under higher budgets. "HIGH: multi-step/reflection-style (Shinn et al., 2023)"
- Retrieval-size sensitivity analysis: An evaluation that studies how performance and cost change as the number of retrieved chunks varies. "Retrieval-size sensitivity analysis."
- Reward-scale alignment: A technique to balance the magnitudes/variances of task and cost rewards to stabilize training. "Ablation of reward-scale alignment under capacity tiering strategy on LoCoMo."
- Robust quantiles: Percentile-based statistics used to normalize costs in a way that is resistant to outliers. "normalize Craw using robust quantiles"
- Router policy: The learned decision function that maps states to budget-tier actions for modules. "Let To denote the router policy"
- Sliding-window normalization: Normalizing values using statistics computed over a recent window to keep scales bounded and stable. "we apply a sliding-window normalization to map costs to a bounded scale"
- Variance-based alignment factor: A scaling term derived from reward variances to prevent one reward component from dominating updates. "we introduce a simple variance-based alignment factor:"
Practical Applications
Practical, Real-World Applications of BudgetMem
Below are actionable applications that follow directly from the paper’s findings and innovations (modular runtime memory pipeline, budget-tiered modules, and a lightweight RL router for explicit performance–cost control). Each item notes relevant sectors, likely tools/products/workflows, and assumptions or dependencies that affect feasibility.
Immediate Applications
- Cost-governed enterprise chat assistants (Software/Industry)
- Description: Deploy assistants that selectively extract and summarize past interactions or documents at query time, meeting explicit cost/latency budgets while improving answer quality.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: “BudgetMem Router SDK” for LangChain/LlamaIndex; per-module budget knobs (LOW/MID/HIGH); observability dashboards showing performance–cost frontiers; retrieval-size tuner.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Access to LLM APIs with per-token pricing; available historical logs segmented into chunks; basic user feedback or proxy metrics to calibrate router rewards.
- Customer support copilots with SLA-aware memory (Customer Support/Contact Centers)
- Description: On-demand extraction of case histories and similar resolutions under different budget tiers; enforce SLAs by routing cheaper tiers for routine queries and higher tiers for escalations.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: CRM integrations (Zendesk/Salesforce) with module-wise budget policies; auto-escalation workflows using capacity tiering (small model → large model).
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Clean, chunked support logs; latency constraints defined; alignment between cost budget and business SLAs.
- Internal knowledge search and RAG memory with cost control (Enterprise/Academia)
- Description: Runtime filtering and summarization of knowledge bases (wikis, docs, code) tailored to each query; explicit budgets prevent runaway costs and keep latency predictable.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Knowledge connector that wraps BudgetMem pipeline (filter → entity/temporal/topic → summary); retrieval-size sensitivity tuner to manage noise vs. coverage.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Robust embedding retriever (e.g., Contriever or similar); indexing of corpora into chunks; minimal offline preprocessing to preserve query-specific fidelity.
- Meeting, email, and personal productivity assistants (Daily Life/Productivity)
- Description: Query-aware extraction of prior threads/meetings; switch tiering strategies (e.g., MID reasoning for routine summaries; HIGH capacity for complex cross-thread questions).
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Plugins for Gmail/Calendar/Slack with budget-toggle UI; “reflection-style” reasoning tier for nuanced summaries; user-configurable monthly compute budgets.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Permissions to access personal history; safeguards for privacy and retention; willingness to trade some latency for higher-quality memory.
- Education copilots with student-specific memory (Education)
- Description: Maintain per-student long-horizon memory (progress, misconceptions) and retrieve it on demand during tutoring; tune reasoning tiers (direct vs. CoT vs. reflection) per task complexity.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: LMS integrations; per-module budget-tiers aligned to activity type (quiz hints vs. project feedback); instructor dashboard for cost/performance oversight.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Data privacy compliance (FERPA/GDPR); reliable labeling of tasks to select appropriate tiers; basic evaluation signals to train routers.
- Software engineering assistants with project memory (Software/DevTools)
- Description: On-demand retrieval of code changes, tickets, and design docs; capacity tiering to jump from lightweight heuristics to LLM-backed extraction for complex refactors.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: CI/CD hooks invoking BudgetMem modules; codebase-aware entity/temporal extraction (e.g., components + commit timelines); cost governance policies.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Source control and issue trackers are accessible; chunked indexing of repositories; latency tolerance during development workflows.
- Legal eDiscovery and compliance QA with query-specific memory (Legal/Finance)
- Description: Preserve raw documents while constructing tailored memory at runtime; explicit cost controls for large corpora; minimize irreversible offline compression for auditability.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Budget-tier policy engine with audit logs of routing decisions; provenance reporting (which chunks, modules, tiers were used); “HIGH tier” trigger for sensitive queries.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Secure storage with access control; clear compliance policies; reliable judge metrics or human-in-the-loop to calibrate high-stakes answers.
- Cloud cost governance and AIOps for LLM memory services (Industry/Platform Ops)
- Description: Operationalize budget-tier routing to keep spend within targets; shift tiers under load; use reward-scale alignment to prevent degenerate low-cost policies.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Budget orchestration service; alerts when router behavior skews; continuous evaluation of performance–cost frontier across deployments.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Unified telemetry across LLM calls; stable pricing APIs; ops teams ready to instrument cost normalization and sliding-window quantiles.
Long-Term Applications
- Hybrid on-device/cloud memory routing for edge and mobile agents (Robotics/IoT/Energy)
- Description: Run LOW-tier modules on-device for privacy and latency; offload HIGH-tier capacity to cloud selectively; optimize battery/energy usage while maintaining quality.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Edge inference stack with capacity tiering; opportunistic caching; router policies trained for intermittency and network constraints.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Efficient small models locally; secure, low-latency cloud fallback; robust router generalization across environments.
- Clinical documentation and EHR assistants with query-aware memory (Healthcare)
- Description: On-demand extraction of patient history, labs, and notes; budget-tier controls tuned to clinical urgency and data sensitivity; minimize unnecessary processing of PHI.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Module templates customized for clinical entities/temporal cues; human feedback for router rewards; audit-ready memory provenance.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: HIPAA/GDPR compliance; domain-specific evaluation metrics; integration with hospital IT systems and governance.
- Continuous finance risk/compliance monitors (Finance)
- Description: Budget-aware runtime memory extraction over trades, messages, and policies; increase tiers during anomalies; maintain performance–cost frontiers as volumes spike.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Compliance orchestration with dynamic tier escalation; integrated cost dashboards; retrospective analysis of router decisions.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Access to time-series and communications data; anomaly signals to inform tiering; strong provenance requirements.
- Lifelong personal memory OS with compute credits (Daily Life/Consumer)
- Description: User-controlled budgets for personal knowledge bases; per-query routing that balances latency, accuracy, and monthly spend.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Consumer-facing “memory compute” dial; explainability UI for cost/performance trade-offs; retrieval-size auto-tuning.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Transparent pricing; easy-to-understand controls; privacy-preserving storage and processing.
- Standardization of budget-tier interfaces and telemetry across LLM tooling (Software/Policy)
- Description: Common API schema for LOW/MID/HIGH module tiers and router telemetry; enables comparability and vendor neutrality.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Open-source budget-tier spec; test harnesses; cross-vendor benchmarking of cost–quality trade-offs.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Community and vendor buy-in; stable evaluation metrics; clear incentives to adopt standards.
- Marketplace for memory modules and tier packs (Industry/Ecosystem)
- Description: Exchange modules (filter/entity/temporal/topic/summary) with documented tier realizations (implementation/reasoning/capacity) and cost profiles.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Module registry with “tier cards”; plug-and-play router training recipes; pricing calculators for deployment scenarios.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Interoperable interfaces; transparent licensing/pricing; benchmarking methodology accepted by the community.
- Adaptive learning from user signals to refine rewards and retrieval size (Academia/Software)
- Description: Move beyond offline F1/judge proxies to online signals (clicks, satisfaction, corrections) to optimize router policies and retrieval size dynamically.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Bandit/RL pipelines; feedback ingestion; automated A/B tests to trace new performance–cost frontiers.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Sufficient volume and quality of feedback; privacy-preserving analytics; robust reward-scale alignment to avoid collapse.
- Multi-agent systems with centralized memory orchestrators (Software/Multi-agent)
- Description: Coordinate budgets across multiple agents sharing long-term memory; router decides per-agent tiering subject to system-wide cost caps.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Centralized “Memory Controller” service; per-agent tier policies; aggregation/summarization workflows at system level.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Clear multi-agent task decomposition; cost-sharing rules; scalable storage and retrieval across agents.
- Transparent compute budgeting norms and regulation (Policy/Governance)
- Description: Encourage disclosures of memory compute budgets, routing decisions, and provenance for consumer-facing AI; facilitate audits and accountability.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Reporting templates; compliance checklists; independent evaluation of performance–cost behavior.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Regulatory interest and guidance; standardized metrics; industry cooperation.
- Safety and privacy controls integrated with runtime memory (Cross-sector)
- Description: Ensure tiering/routing respects retention policies and access control; reduce exposure of sensitive history by operating on-demand and minimally.
- Potential tools/products/workflows: Policy-aware routers; data minimization workflows; automated redaction within modules where needed.
- Assumptions/Dependencies: Accurate policy encoding; reliable detection of sensitive content; ongoing audits of memory extraction behavior.
Notes on feasibility across applications:
- The paper’s modular pipeline (filter → entity/temporal/topic → summary) and budget-tier routing are directly deployable; however, training the RL router requires task-specific rewards. In production, proxy rewards (LLM-as-a-judge, user feedback, or business KPIs) must replace ground-truth labels.
- Capacity/implementation/reasoning tiering generalizes well across base models (transfer shown from LLaMA to Qwen), but domain-specific modules may need customization (especially in healthcare/legal).
- Retrieval-size sensitivity is a practical tuning knob; teams should establish defaults (e.g., top-5 chunks) and adapt per corpus to balance cost and noise.
Collections
Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.