Ganesh S | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

FluctlightDB: A Memory Model of Data for AI Agents

For fifty years, data systems have answered two questions. The relational model asked which records match a predicate; the vector model asked which vectors lie nearest a query. Neither was built for cue-driven, provenance-weighted recall across long sessions. We propose treating long-term agent memory as a distinct data model -- with its own write semantics (encoding, separation, consolidation, provenance) and read semantics (cue-driven activation across a linked memory graph) -- and present FluctlightDB, an embedded engine that implements this contract via experience() and activate(). We do not claim novelty over Mem0, Zep, or HippoRAG-style memory layers, only an embedded engine contract beneath them. Numbers are typed by metric; retrieval is not generation. On LoCoMo (official evidence-recall; 10 conversations, 1,982 gold spans), our native-Rust CHORUS stack reaches 96.8% at k=150 as raw evidence recall with no neighbor expansion, on an internally reproduced July 2026 run; at k=5 it still yields 72.6%, while end-to-end QA over date-stamped context reaches 85% at k=15 (retrieval-bound). On LongMemEval-S (500 questions), official session_recall@8 is 97.6% (488/500) and end-to-end QA with our reader/judge stack is 97.4% (487/500) -- different protocols from vendor leaderboard figures we cite for context only. On BEIR SciFact (shared MiniLM embeddings, same harness), CHORUS/PRISM edges Chroma on nDCG@10 (0.646 vs. 0.645) and Recall@10 (0.792 vs. 0.783). A graded provenance-conflict suite (n=50) scores 18% top-1 when all pairs share one brain versus 100% under per-case isolation (ceiling, not deployment evidence). Engine, harnesses and frozen JSON are MIT; pip install "fluctlightdb[native]" re-runs the published numbers. We claim no new neuroscience and no new transformer: a missing layer of the data stack, released for others to re-run and contest.

cs.DB↗

arXiv2025

Hybrid Graphs for Table-and-Text based Question Answering using LLMs

Answering questions that require reasoning and aggregation across both structured (tables) and unstructured (raw text) data sources presents significant challenges. Current methods rely on fine-tuning and high-quality, human-curated data, which is difficult to obtain. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising results for multi-hop question answering (QA) over single-source text data in a zero-shot setting, yet exploration into multi-source Table-Text QA remains limited. In this paper, we present a novel Hybrid Graph-based approach for Table-Text QA that leverages LLMs without fine-tuning. Our method constructs a unified Hybrid Graph from textual and tabular data, pruning information based on the input question to provide the LLM with relevant context concisely. We evaluate our approach on the challenging Hybrid-QA and OTT-QA datasets using state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and LLaMA-3. Our method achieves the best zero-shot performance on both datasets, improving Exact Match scores by up to 10% on Hybrid-QA and 5.4% on OTT-QA. Moreover, our approach reduces token usage by up to 53% compared to the original context.

cs.CL↗