LoCoMo-Conv

baseline only

The same memories asked the way people ask them — dialog, implicit, counterfactual, composed. The dataset is not released, so what is here is the paper’s retrieval protocol run on the original questions the rewrites came from, and nothing more.

Start on Hanzo Cloud

The embedder moves it more than most systems differ

embedderR@10, all

all-MiniLM-L6-v2 (the paper’s)42.9
all-MiniLM-L6-v2, sentence-transformers42.9
zen-embedding-0.6b59.7

$ node results.mjs

regenerates every table on this page from the raw runs

dataset: LoCoMo-Conv
licence: unreleased
introduced by: LoCoMo-Conv — Chang & Chen, NTU MiuLab, September 2026
harness: hanzoai/benchmarks · brain
our paper: Linkage, Not Similarity

There is no score on this page

LoCoMo-Conv rewrites LoCoMo’s questions the way people actually ask them — dialog, implicit, counterfactual, composed — and it is the benchmark on this list we would most like to report. The data is not released. The paper’s one address answers 404. So no LoCoMo-Conv number appears here, no Hanzo configuration has been run on it, and nothing below is a result on that benchmark.

The embedder moves it more than most systems differ

the paper’s protocol · k=10 · verbatim containment · the original LoCoMo questions

The embedder moves it more than most systems differ

embedder · n · R@10, all · R@10, no adversarial · single-hop · multi-hop · temporal
embedder	n	R@10, all	R@10, no adversarial	single-hop	multi-hop	temporal
all-MiniLM-L6-v2 (the paper’s)	1977	42.9	45.5	52.3	26.7	49.4
all-MiniLM-L6-v2, sentence-transformers	1977	42.9	45.5	52.3	27.0	49.4
zen-embedding-0.6b	1977	59.7	63.5	70.5	38.1	74.0

Changing nothing but the embedding model moves R@10 from 42.9 to 59.7 — 16.8 points, on identical questions, an identical index unit and an identical k.

So does the unit of memory

one embedder · k=10 · the same questions · what changes is how the conversation is cut up

So does the unit of memory
memory unit	n	R@10, all	R@10, no adversarial
a single turn	1982	42.8	45.4
a 2-turn window	1982	56.3	54.3
a 3-turn window	1982	62.5	60.7
a 5-turn window	1982	60.3	58.2
a whole session	1982	62.1	61.8

What this is for

Both of those differences are larger than most published differences between named memory systems. A paper reporting R@10 on a conversational benchmark, ours included, is reporting the sum of three choices — the embedder, the unit and k — and usually names one of them. That is the reason every table on this site carries its embedder, its unit and its k in the line above it, and the reason a single R@10 quoted without them is not a comparison between systems.