Memory-based Multimodal Reasoning

• Memory-based multimodal reasoning is a computational approach that integrates explicit memory modules and dynamic fusion strategies to process heterogeneous information across modalities.
• It employs iterative, multi-hop retrieval and attention mechanisms to progressively refine context and enhance the accuracy of inference.
• These systems enable robust cross-modal alignment for applications like video QA, emotion recognition, and forensics, highlighting significant empirical improvements.

Memory-based multimodal reasoning refers to computational frameworks and neural architectures that integrate explicit or implicit memory modules to support inference over heterogeneous information—typically spanning visual, auditory, textual, and other sensory modalities—where context retention, iterative retrieval, and the chaining of multi-source evidence are central to robust reasoning performance. These systems draw from advances in memory-augmented neural networks, cognitive brain-inspired models, multi-step attention mechanisms, and alignment strategies that collectively enable cross-modal, temporally-extended, and contextually-grounded reasoning far beyond naive feature fusion or single-pass matching.

1. Architectural Principles and Memory Modules

Memory-based multimodal reasoning architectures typically center around two interrelated design patterns: the use of explicit memory components and mechanisms for dynamic, iterative fusion and retrieval across modalities.

In early memory-enhanced VideoQA models, e.g., Heterogeneous Memory Enhanced Multimodal Attention (HMEMA) (Fan et al., 2019), two explicit memory modules are constructed: a heterogeneous video memory (partitioned for appearance and motion features) and a question memory. These modules each use independent hidden states and attentional read/write operations to accumulate global representations. Memory slots accumulate and refine context using equations such as:

• For motion/appearance content: $$c_t^{(m/a)} = \sigma(W_{oc}^{(m/a)} o_t^{(m/a)} + W_{hc}^{(m/a)} h_{t-1}^{(m/a)} + b_c^{(m/a)})$$,
• Attention-weighted memory update/read,
• Unified memory integration across modalities through dynamic weights $\varepsilon_t \in \mathbb{R}^3$.

Subsequent frameworks generalize the concept, enabling separation between episodic memories and sub-item compositions as in MEMO (Banino et al., 2020); adaptive, iterative retrieval (multi-hop) over memory slots; and cross-modal memory representations. Memory-based Attentive Fusion (MBAF) (Priyasad et al., 2020) and PMI (Zeng et al., 2023) propose plug-in memory blocks that maintain a persistent context of fused feature streams, with explicit attention-driven read, compose, and write operations, as exemplified by:

• Keyed attention read: $z_t = \text{softmax}(f_r(x_t)^\top M_{t-1})$,
• Self-attention–mediated composition and memory update.

Human memory-inspired models adopt a dual-stage memory—short-term or "working" memory for immediate context, and long-term structured memory for cumulative, relational knowledge (Zeng et al., 2023, Long et al., 13 Aug 2025). Update mechanisms include differentiable sparse attention (e.g., top-k softmax) for competitive writing, and outer product associations for relational consolidation.

2. Iterative and Multi-Hop Reasoning Processes

A defining feature of memory-based multimodal reasoning is the support for iterative, multi-hop inference, where reasoning chains require retrieving, updating, and composing intermediate cues from stored memory.

In HMEMA (Fan et al., 2019), a multi-step LSTM controller, at each step, attends to memory-encoded visual and textual features, forms modality-attended vectors, dynamically weighs their contributions, fuses them, and iteratively updates its reasoning state. This loop:

$$s_t = \mathrm{LSTM}\left(\varphi_t^v d_t^v + \varphi_t^q d_t^q,\, s_{t-1}\right)$$

enables progressive refinement of modality attention and answer representation.

MEMO (Banino et al., 2020) and MemReasoner (Das et al., 10 Mar 2025) instantiate adaptive-hops with recurrent attention and dynamic read-update cycles, halting execution when sufficient information is retrieved. The query is successively refined as $q_{t+1}^{(h)} = w_t^{(h)}\cdot V^{(h)}$ (MEMO) or in MemReasoner:

$$z_q \leftarrow z_q + \alpha \tilde{z}_r,\ \text{repeat until} \ \|\tilde{z}_r^{(t+1)} - \tilde{z}_r^{(t)}\|_2 < \tau$$

Step-wise reasoning is central to frameworks using process reward models (PRMs) with annealed beam search (Hu et al., 14 Apr 2025), which dynamically narrows the search space as more context is accumulated, with auxiliary intelligence to guide intermediate hypotheses, and to "point-and-copy" architectures (Chung et al., 24 May 2025) that permit dynamic revisit of visual features across the reasoning trajectory.

3. Cross-Modal Fusion, Grounding, and Representation

Memory-based systems enhance the fusion, grounding, and alignment of modalities through both memory-augmented fusion layers and cognitive mapping architectures:

• MBAF (Priyasad et al., 2020) and related approaches embed memory modules within the fusion stage to access and refine historical context, reducing the risk of information loss and naive averaging.
• Cognitively-inspired architectures (e.g. (Stoewer et al., 2023)) create "cognitive maps": spatially or semantically organized feature graphs, where multimodal features serve as jointly grounded nodes. Successor representations, $M = \sum_{t=0}^\infty \gamma^t T^t$, formalize long-range associations akin to hippocampal place-cell dynamics, supporting reasoning-by-analogy and cross-modal context retrieval.
• HippoMM (Lin et al., 14 Apr 2025) and M3-Agent (Long et al., 13 Aug 2025) adopt dual-memory (episodic and semantic) and entity-centric graph-based memory structures, respectively, enabling bi-directional associative queries, sequence chunking, and integration of events at multiple temporal and abstraction levels.

Such designs enable robust context recall, out-of-order and cross-modal linking, and the dynamic integration of evidence from temporally or spatially disparate sources.

4. Benchmarking, Evaluation, and Reasoning Analysis

Comprehensive assessment of memory-based multimodal reasoning requires evaluation protocols and benchmarks that stress multi-step, memory-dependent inference and offer trace-level inspection:

• Datasets such as MMLU-Reason (Tie et al., 22 May 2025) and MR$^2$-Bench (Zhou et al., 30 Sep 2025) are constructed with tasks demanding multi-hop, symbolic, and spatial reasoning, with explicit modular reasoning trace pipelines. Metrics assess not only accuracy but consistency, relevance-to-question, and relevance-to-answer (RTQ, RTA, RSC), often aggregated in an overall assessment:

$$OA = w_{ACC} \cdot ACC + w_{RTQ} \cdot RTQ + w_{RTA} \cdot RTA + w_{RSC} \cdot RSC$$

• Agent-ScanKit (Cheng et al., 1 Oct 2025) systematically probes agents for over-memorization versus genuine reasoning by controlled visual and linguistic perturbations, quantifying the drop in accuracy $\Delta_P$ under perturbations and highlighting persistent reliance on retrieval over inference.
• Collaborative reasoning strategies (Michelman et al., 7 Mar 2025) utilize memory banks of exemplars (frozen or learned), distributed across agents with varied contexts, showing that random or diverse retrieval often outperforms tightly similarity-based selection, and that multi-agent summarization can mitigate reasoning pathologies.

5. Real-World Applications and Empirical Impact

Memory-based multimodal reasoning systems offer measurable advances across numerous domains:

• VideoQA: HMEMA (Fan et al., 2019) achieves state-of-the-art on datasets such as TGIF-QA and MSVD-QA, with ablation showing 2–7% accuracy gains via memory modules.
• Affective computing and health: MBAF (Priyasad et al., 2020) yields +1.7%–6.5% improvements in weighted accuracy for emotion recognition (IEMOCAP) and vital signals analysis.
• Forensics: FakeHunter (Chen et al., 20 Aug 2025) marries memory retrieval, chain-of-thought reasoning, and tool-augmented inspection to outperform baselines by substantial accuracy margins (e.g. +16.87 percentage points).
• Translation with multimodal context: ViDove (Lu et al., 9 Jul 2025) leverages both short- and long-term multimodal memory for subtitle translation, improving BLEU and SubER by 28% and 15%, respectively.
• General agent systems: M3-Agent (Long et al., 13 Aug 2025) demonstrates higher accuracy than prompting-based LLM hybrids, especially when complex, temporally-extended video is involved.

Empirical results confirm that dynamic, memory-enhanced architectures deliver superior performance, particularly under conditions requiring context-aware disambiguation, long-term consistency, or the integration of multi-source evidence.

6. Challenges, Limitations, and Future Directions

Despite progress, several challenges and limitations persist:

• Over-memorization: Many systems, especially GUI agents (Cheng et al., 1 Oct 2025), display excessive reliance on memorization and retrieval, failing to generalize to new or out-of-domain scenarios. Extensive sensitivity analysis reveals limited robustness to perturbations, prompting a call for architectures with more systematic reasoning capability.
• Efficiency and scalability: Storing high-dimensional multimodal features for each memory slot can be computationally prohibitive (see M3 (Zou et al., 20 Mar 2025)). Memory compression strategies (e.g., principal scene components, continuous embeddings (Wu et al., 23 May 2025)) and plug-and-play memory encoders are being investigated for improved tractability.
• Fine-grained memory supervision: Performance in complex multi-hop tasks is highly sensitive to even minimal intermediate supervision (as little as 1% can double accuracy (Das et al., 10 Mar 2025)), yet obtaining or simulating such supervision remains a bottleneck.
• Reasoning trace quality: As revealed by MMLU-Reason (Tie et al., 22 May 2025), there remains a persistent gap between answer accuracy and reasoning chain coherence, with pathologies such as overthinking and inconsistency. Ongoing research addresses trace-aware losses and more interpretable latent structures.

Future work spans the design of fully native multimodal reasoning agents (N-LMRMs) (Li et al., 8 May 2025), plug-and-play or continuous memory systems (Wu et al., 23 May 2025), dynamic revision and revisit mechanisms (Chung et al., 24 May 2025), and the integration of process- or reward-model-guided reasoning search (Hu et al., 14 Apr 2025) for more interpretable, agentic, and scalable reasoning chains.

7. Theoretical Significance and Cognitive Alignment

The field increasingly draws inspiration from cognitive neuroscience, especially in hierarchical organization (short-term working memory vs. long-term, semantic, and relational memory structures) as seen in PMI (Zeng et al., 2023), cognitive map architectures (Stoewer et al., 2023), and Hippocampal-inspired models (HippoMM (Lin et al., 14 Apr 2025), M3-Agent (Long et al., 13 Aug 2025)).

These approaches formalize complex, multi-scale memory processes using:

• Top-k competitive write access (sparse attention) and outer product associations;
• Successor representations to model future state occupancy;
• Adaptive consolidation, segmentation, and abstraction processes that mirror pattern separation/completion and memory consolidation in biological systems.

Such cognitive alignment not only enhances interpretability and generalization but establishes a conceptual convergence between artificial memory-based reasoning and advanced models of human cognition.

---

Memory-based multimodal reasoning constitutes a critical advance toward systems capable of integrating, recalling, and reasoning over diverse, temporally-extended, and multi-modal data streams. Through explicit memory architectures, iterative attention mechanisms, cross-modal grounding, and robust evaluation, current methodologies lay the groundwork for reliable, context-aware AI reasoning in complex, real-world environments.