Abstract
Pretrained Transformers keep what they learned in their weights and lose what they observe once a session ends. The first version of this paper proposed a Retention Layer, a persistent memory that a Transformer block reads with attention and writes during use. Because most of what a deployed model could retain is produced by other agents, this revision treats deciding what to keep as a social learning problem: when to rely on observed behaviour, whom to learn from and how much independent agreement to require. We give a corrected specification of the layer, which reduces exactly to the base Transformer when its memory is empty. We derive the memory's lifecycle from social learning strategies: encoding gated by surprise, observed outcomes and earned credibility; consolidation by a credibility weighted quorum of distinct, recent sources that must also outweigh every rival behaviour; and reconsolidation by the outcomes of reproduction. We prove that raising the quorum lowers the risk of consolidating a coordinated false template exponentially while delaying true templates only linearly, and that relative consolidation protects only while credible honest evidence arrives faster than adversarial evidence. In a simulation with world drift and three memory-poisoning attacks, the lifecycle reached accuracies of 0.989 to 0.996, against 0.62 to 0.63 for the ungated first version design, and kept attack success at or below 0.07 when 30% of the observations about a target were adversarial. As predicted, it amplified attacks once adversarial evidence outpaced honest evidence. Experience with a long running assistant adds two rules: a model's own outputs must not count as support, and a user's testimony should be kept after one mention. We close with an evaluation protocol for language models.
Explore similar work
Sep 15, 2026cs.CL
We introduce a simple architectural modification to decoder-only transformers: a persistent recurrent state that observes hidden representations via cross-attention, updates itself through a GRU, and modulates subsequent processing via gated addition. Inserted between the lower and upper halves of a 6-layer transformer, this module adds only 3.7% additional parameters while reducing evaluation loss from
2.438±0.004 to
1.743±0.018, corresponding to a 28.5% reduction on held-out language modeling data. The improvement is statistically significant across 5 random seeds (
p<0.01) and corresponds to reduced overfitting (generalization gap 0.12 vs 0.26). Through controlled ablations, we demonstrate that the improvement stems entirely from the persistent memory topology, not from auxiliary self-prediction objectives. A model with identical topology but no auxiliary loss performs equivalently, while a random auxiliary loss provides no benefit. Representation probing reveals that the persistent state encodes narrative position (52% vs 33% chance level)---information that standard attention maintains less efficiently. Our results suggest that bridging transformer layers with a lightweight recurrent memory is a simple, effective approach to improving generalization in small-scale language models.
Eduardo Novaes Hering
May 13, 2026cs.AI
Learning from past experience benefits from two complementary forms of memory: episodic traces -- raw trajectories of what happened -- and consolidated abstractions distilled across many episodes into reusable, schema-like lessons. Recent agentic-memory systems pursue the consolidated form: an LLM rewrites past trajectories into a textual memory bank that it continuously updates with new interactions, promising self-improving agents without parameter updates. Yet we find that such consolidated memories produced by today's LLMs are often faulty even when derived from useful experiences. As consolidation proceeds, memory utility first rises, then degrades, and can fall below the no-memory baseline. More surprisingly, even when consolidating from ground-truth solutions, GPT-5.4 fails on 54% of a set of ARC-AGI problems it had previously solved without memory. We trace the regression to the consolidation step rather than the underlying experience: the same trajectories yield qualitatively different memories under different update schedules, and an episodic-only control that simply retains those trajectories remains competitive with the consolidators we test. In a controlled ARC-AGI Stream environment that exposes Retain, Delete, and Consolidate actions, agents preserve raw episodes by default and double the accuracy of their forced-consolidation counterparts; disabling consolidation entirely (episodic management only) matches this auto regime. Practically, robust agent memory should treat raw episodes as first-class evidence and gate consolidation explicitly rather than firing it after every interaction. Looking forward, reliable agentic memory will require LLMs that can consolidate without overwriting the evidence they depend on.
Dylan Zhang, Yanshan Lin, Zhengkun Wu +4
Jun 28, 2026cs.AI
When does retention matter for memory-augmented LLM agents? We study this with TraceRetain, a lightweight framework for bounded external memory in frozen LLM agents that scores entries by interpretable features (success, age, access frequency, redundancy, specificity, similarity, downstream utility) and evicts the lowest-scoring ones at capacity. On clean ALFWorld with gpt-5-mini, external memory robustly improves over no memory across two seeds, but differences among bounded retention policies fall within Wilson 95% CIs: clean ALFWorld at T=100 to T=200 does not naturally exhibit the memory pollution retention is designed to address. Under a controlled noisy-write stress (75% synthetic distractors), unbounded memory and FIFO-K50 degrade on Precision@5 (20.2% to 12.4% and 15.8% to 3.8%) while TraceRetain-CEM is essentially unchanged (16.9% to 16.6%) and preserves 97/100 task success. The mechanism: unbounded memory has the highest mean similarity (0.87) but lowest precision, indicating failed distractors close to the query in embedding space. Held-out in-distribution evaluation shows memory-augmented policies solving 47 to 49 of 50 tasks vs. 39/50 for no memory. Bounded retention buys memory and step efficiency on saturated clean benchmarks at no task-success cost, and only differentiates from cache heuristics when streams contain noise.
Pranath Reddy