Keep It InMind: Benchmarking the Implicit-Association Blind Spot in Agent Memory
Long-term memory systems store what a user says in an external store and retrieve it when a related query arrives. This interface rests on an assumption so natural that it is rarely stated: a memory that is needed will resemble the query that needs it. World knowledge breaks the assumption. A tree-nut allergy should change the answer to a macaron request through their almond-flour ingredient, yet the two texts share no cue a retriever can see. We call this failure mode the implicit-association blind spot and introduce InMind, a 125-task, expert-verified benchmark spanning ten life domains, with 113 tasks grounded in citable public sources. Its paired controls separate three explanations that existing evaluations conflate: the fact was never stored, the model lacks the bridging knowledge, or the fact was stored and never surfaced. The verdict is clean. With the decisive memory placed in context, the backbone answers 84.0% of indirect queries; when the same memory must be retrieved, six vector, graph, and agentic memory systems reach at most 14.4%, even though they recall the same facts on demand at up to 100%. An embedding with eight times the dimensionality raises answer-blind target recall for every system yet leaves the gap essentially intact.
Introduction. Ask a memory-augmented agent what its user is allergic to, and it answers correctly: tree nuts. Ask it a moment later for a macaron recipe, and it responds with enthusiasm and almond flour. Figure 1 illustrates the exchange; Appendix D records an evaluated memory system reproducing it verbatim. Nothing was forgotten—the system recalled the allergy on demand seconds earlier. What failed is subtler and, we will argue, structural: the memory was never brought to bear at the one moment it mattered. Language agents are increasingly expected to act as persistent assistants rather than stateless chatbots (Zhang et al., 2024; Packer et al., 2023; Pan et al., 2025): a user states a fact about themselves once and expects it to keep mattering days later, in another conversation, on a topic they never connected to it themselves. The dominant way to meet this expectation is retrieval-based memory.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
How do aggregate reward models systematically exclude minority user preferences?- Does learning community preferences as training rewards operationalize prediction without participation?
- How should preference channels from historical sessions inform unified policy learning?
- Can curiosity rewards about user type complement general social motivation frameworks?
- Does sequential structure within sessions complement cross-session preference channels?
- How can a single policy handle both asking preferences and recommending items?
- Can side information alone predict preferences without rating history?
- Can curiosity-driven dialogue incrementally discover user interest journeys in real time?
- Can agents learn user intent from unlabeled video without text labels?
- Can users articulate what they want before AI helps them discover it?
- Why might text-only interfaces underestimate agent preference elicitation capabilities?
- How should systems learn what each meeting participant actually cares about?
- How can agents detect whether users are willing to follow their topic guidance?
- When should agents accommodate user preferences over their own goals?
- Can agents balance goal-driven proactivity with user preference alignment?
- Can curiosity-driven personalization work better than pre-conversation preference elicitation?
- Does semantic memory improve AI personalization more than episodic memory?