Memory-Gym SFT improves over the untrained Researcher on all four benchmarks and gives the best supervision-source scores on three. MemAgent-derived data gives the best HotpotQA score but, like Memory-R1-derived data, reduces NarrativeQA F1. Full Memory-Gym supervision exceeds each single-family variant on all four benchmarks; the best single family varies by benchmark.

Memory-Gym SFT improves over the untrained Researcher on all four benchmarks and gives the best supervision-source scores on three. MemAgent-derived data gives the best HotpotQA score but, like Memory-R1-derived data, reduces NarrativeQA F1. Full Memory-Gym supervision exceeds each single-family variant on all four benchmarks; the best single family varies by benchmark. · CiteArk

测量结果

已评估 0/28 项

获得支持 0有争议或冲突 0尚未评估 28

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
variant: w/o SFT · category: overall · benchmark: locomo	48.59 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
variant: w/o SFT · category: overall · benchmark: longmemeval	48.8%	—	尚未评估
variant: w/o SFT · category: overall · benchmark: narrativeqa	34.98 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
variant: w/o SFT · category: overall · benchmark: hotpotqa	45.44 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
variant: MemAgent data · category: overall · benchmark: locomo	48.6 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
variant: MemAgent data · category: overall · benchmark: longmemeval	55.2%	—	尚未评估
variant: MemAgent data · category: overall · benchmark: narrativeqa	31.98 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
variant: MemAgent data · category: overall · benchmark: hotpotqa	54.53 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
variant: Memory-R1 data · category: overall · benchmark: locomo	48.9 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
variant: Memory-R1 data · category: overall · benchmark: longmemeval	57.2%	—	尚未评估
variant: Memory-R1 data · category: overall · benchmark: narrativeqa	32.42 F1 points (0–100)	—	尚未评估
variant: Memory-R1 data · category: overall · benchmark: hotpotqa	49.81 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