Benchmark methodology: how we measure 88.2% LoCoMo recall #211
ferhimedamine
started this conversation in
Show and tell
Replies: 0 comments
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
What is LoCoMo?
LoCoMo (Long-term Conversation Memory) is an academic benchmark designed to evaluate how well AI systems retain and recall information from long multi-turn conversations. It was published by researchers at Meta AI and covers realistic conversation patterns: factual recall, temporal reasoning, preference tracking, and multi-hop questions.
We use LoCoMo as our primary quality gate because it tests the scenarios that matter most for agent memory:
Our current score: 88.2%
As of the latest stable release, Dakera achieves 88.2% recall accuracy on the full LoCoMo evaluation set. This score reflects our default configuration with no task-specific tuning.
How we run the evaluation
The benchmark is fully automated and runs in CI on every significant change to the recall pipeline:
The runner:
What the score measures
The 88.2% figure is a recall accuracy — for each evaluation question, we check whether the correct memory is in the top-K retrieved results. We use the standard LoCoMo evaluation protocol so the number is directly comparable to published results from other memory systems.
What it doesn’t measure
LoCoMo is a retrieval benchmark, not an end-to-end agent benchmark. It tells you how well Dakera retrieves relevant memories, not how a downstream LLM uses those memories. Real-world performance also depends on your importance scoring strategy, your
recall_ksetting, and the quality of what you store.Running it yourself
Want to verify the score on your own hardware or with a custom configuration?
Results will print per-category accuracy and an overall score. If you see a different number than 88.2%, we’d genuinely like to know — your hardware, dataset version, or configuration might surface an interesting edge case.
Transparency commitment
We report the score from a full benchmark run, not a cherry-picked subset. We don’t publish a score until the CI gate passes on the unmodified main branch. When the score changes (up or down), we note it in the release changelog.
Have questions about the evaluation methodology or want to compare notes on memory benchmarking? Drop them below.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions