Memoir: Should a Model Write to Its Memory While It Thinks?

Recurrent, attention-free sequence models share a structural weakness: a fading state cannot perform exact recall of something seen once, far in the past. We add to the Kathleen trunk a second memory layer -- a "notebook": a fixed-key holographic (HRR) associative store with a learned local write gate, a self-gating raw read, and write-triggered forgetting -- 25K parameters that attach to the logits of any trunk. (1) Mechanism: on a controlled needle-in-haystack task the notebook reaches 80-82% one-shot recall at 4x the training length, where the bare trunk scores ~4% and a parameter-matched attention head scores 100% inside its training length and 0% beyond it. Addressing is length-invariant by construction; the untrained memory alone recalls at 90% accuracy identically at 512, 2048 and 4096 bytes. Because the store is a linear superposition, two capabilities follow from arithmetic alone: selective unlearning (one subtraction erases one fact to chance, retained facts unharmed) and per-token attribution (counterfactual erasure names the source fact of every correct byte, 100% provenance). (2) Real text: on WikiText-2 bytes the notebook improves prediction of repeated rare words by +0.15-0.27 bits/byte, the gain growing with the distance between mentions and holding zero-shot at 4x training length; write-triggered forgetting eliminates memory pollution at 8x length (first-mention cost +0.33 -> -0.004). (3) Scope and scale: a parameter-matched attention head does generalize on natural-text repetition, so the notebook's claim is exact recall at O(L); on a WikiText-103 ladder (8 to 512 MB) the zero-shot repeat gain rises monotonically. All experiments are pre-registered, seeds reported, and reproducible on a single free-tier GPU.

A language model with a bounded working memory must repeatedly decide which stored items to keep. Every deployed method decides the moment an item arrives, from the past (StreamingLLM, H2O) or from a guess about the future (SnapKV). We recast the choice as an estimation problem on a hidden signal, whether an item will be reused, placing existing methods on one axis, the commit lag $H$: online filters and learned predictors commit at $H=0$, while Belady's offline optimum sits where the whole future is known. The missing regime in between, fixed-lag smoothing, waits a bounded number of steps, observes which items a correct near-future prediction attended to, and only then commits. This measurement, demonstrated utility, turns Belady's unobservable future request into something we read off the model itself. We instantiate it as a training-free policy, RMM, a strict generalization of H2O that reduces to it exactly when the measurement is uniform. In controlled settings where reuse is endogenous and separated in time, demonstrated utility identifies used memory far better than accumulated attention, and a small bounded memory behaves like a much larger one. But on independent third-party benchmarks, run inside NVIDIA's KVPress harness against its own SnapKV, H2O, and StreamingLLM implementations, the advantage mostly disappears: RMM is on par with H2O for single-turn question answering and loses to both H2O and SnapKV in a streaming multi-turn setting. The cause is simple: on natural text the model is correct about most tokens, so weighting attention by correctness barely changes it, and demonstrated utility collapses onto accumulated attention unless reuse is sharp and endogenous, which standard benchmarks do not exercise. Our contribution is the framework and an honest map of when measuring beats accumulating, not a new state of the art.

We introduce the design-model framework: a way to derive efficient recurrent sequence maps from explicit assumptions about memory. A design model writes evidence into memory by exact Bayesian filtering; a query-dependent readout produces a predictive distribution whose mean is the layer output. In our linear-Gaussian instantiation, the \emph{Bayesian Layer} propagates both a mean and a covariance: the covariance tracks uncertainty over stored associations, steering writes toward uncertain directions, attenuating gains as evidence accumulates, and preserving confident memories. The same framework unifies several sub-quadratic recurrences. Linear attention, GLA, and Mamba-2/SSD are exact filters under one design model, whereas DeltaNet and related Delta-rule models arise as covariance-reset reductions under another. Restoring the covariance yields closed-form predictions for retrieval dynamics, verified empirically, and improves robustness beyond the training regime across controlled collision studies, learned associative recall, and the Zoology MQAR benchmark; distilling Bayesian Layers into a pretrained 340M Gated DeltaNet improves RULER long-context retrieval at matched compute.