Separating Stream Stability from Long-Term Recall in Language Models

Memory-Mediated Learning Architecture (MMLA) separates slow base parameters theta, a bounded numerical policy carrier Phi, and a bounded authoritative memory M. Predictive Dual-State Adaptation (PDSA) lets feedback update Phi while one problem remains active and lets a trusted lifecycle atomically commit one typed row or exact NULL. Later reasoning may read both states, but their writers, resets, rollback domains, and ledgers remain distinct. Realized futures supervise values only during training; deployment is causal and future-blind. We give conditional theory and falsifiable contracts for reasoning-time updates, completed-segment consolidation, predictive admission, authoritative memory, and dual-state attribution. Assumptions, counterexamples, capacity and cost ledgers, recovery duties, and identifying experiments are explicit; these are not implementation guarantees. Controlled studies show exact lifecycle execution on 300/300 held-out records for each of three seeds, calibrated retrieval gains over frozen-hidden dense and BM25 baselines, and exact typed anchor-filler transport on 240/240 held-out records per seed. These validate restricted components, not natural-language memory management or complete PDSA. Post-training studies retain positive and negative evidence. Later protocols obtain restricted readout progress, but a nine-trajectory comparison finds that matched latent readout, a full-width bridge, and bridge plus frozen text-teacher alignment all fail continuous-event qualification across both task families. A separately adapted text reference and restoration checks pass. At the September 13, 2026 evidence cutoff, no strict policy-only reasoning-time-training effect, predictive-admission oracle margin, learned future-blind admission policy, or policy-by-memory factorial advantage is established.

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.

Frontier language models solve reasoning problems in a single forward pass that would have been research contributions years ago, yet fail at multi-hour tasks: losing track of earlier decisions, declaring half-finished work done, or drifting from goals. We call this the horizon gap and survey 1,547 arXiv papers (2024-2026) collected via systematic seed harvest with a disclosed 26.8% bleed filter, extended by targeted supplementation. We disambiguate three routinely conflated properties: long-horizon (task property: required steps), long-context (model property: token capacity), and long-term memory (system property: persistence across steps/sessions). We organize the corpus into six categories tracking a long-horizon task's lifecycle -- planning, memory, execution, training, evaluation, and foundations/safety -- crossed with an axis capturing where horizons are carried (within-context, within-task-beyond-context, or cross-task-persistent). Across all categories, we find the same pattern: outcome-only signals grow uninformative as horizons lengthen, and the field's response -- whether process reward models, credit assignment, or trajectory-level diagnostics -- manufactures denser step-level signals. We treat critical and diagnostic literature as first-class threads throughout, arguing that segregating critique from method would routinely split single papers across chapters. We close by naming open measurement problems: decomposing model versus harness capability, managing correlated bias in process-level signals used for both training and evaluation, and whether long-horizon reliability admits general predictive theory.