JAM has higher query latency than one-shot AOT systems but higher LoCoMo F1. Its one-time workspace construction is faster than A-MEM and Mem0 and slower than MemoryOS and LightMem. Against MemAgent, JAM lowers online latency from 58.08 to 13.81 seconds per query (reported 76.2% reduction) while raising F1 from 46.13 to 52.09.

JAM has higher query latency than one-shot AOT systems but higher LoCoMo F1. Its one-time workspace construction is faster than A-MEM and Mem0 and slower than MemoryOS and LightMem. Against MemAgent, JAM lowers online latency from 58.08 to 13.81 seconds per query (reported 76.2% reduction) while raising F1 from 46.13 to 52.09. · CiteArk

测量结果

已评估 0/18 项

获得支持 0有争议或冲突 0尚未评估 18

保留同一结论下的完整结果组。已有评估排在前面；单项判断不替代整组结论。展开行查看条件、来源与历次证据。

每行是一项测量，分别显示论文报告、最近可用实测和累计证据状态。
指标与条件	论文报告	最近可用实测	证据判断
method: A-MEM · benchmark: LoCoMo	200.42 s/workspace	—	尚未评估
method: A-MEM · benchmark: LoCoMo	0.48 s/query	—	尚未评估
method: A-MEM · benchmark: LoCoMo	41.17 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
method: Mem0 · benchmark: LoCoMo	90.67 s/workspace	—	尚未评估
method: Mem0 · benchmark: LoCoMo	0.2 s/query	—	尚未评估
method: Mem0 · benchmark: LoCoMo	32.1 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
method: MemoryOS · benchmark: LoCoMo	41.36 s/workspace	—	尚未评估
method: MemoryOS · benchmark: LoCoMo	0.52 s/query	—	尚未评估
method: MemoryOS · benchmark: LoCoMo	31.67 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
method: LightMem · benchmark: LoCoMo	6.82 s/workspace	—	尚未评估
method: LightMem · benchmark: LoCoMo	0.22 s/query	—	尚未评估
method: LightMem · benchmark: LoCoMo	32.97 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估

报告指标与观测值

Assessment（0）

关联运行（0）

测量结果