cs.LGSep 14, 2026

Anatomy of Associative Recall in Fixed-State Recurrences: A Matched-State Decomposition, an Interference Wall, and a Curriculum That Breaks It

Authors: Julian Boesch, Andrew Wee

Abstract

Fixed-state recurrences--linear attention and state-space models--are reported to lag behind attention on associative recall, but whole-architecture comparisons cannot say which ingredient is responsible. We decompose masked multi-query recall at a fixed state budget along three single-knob axes: a short causal convolution, the transition structure (rank-1 delta rule vs. diagonal), and decay. The convolution dominates (~+0.5 recall in both families under matched training): comparisons that pit convolution-free cells against a convolution-equipped Mamba measure the missing convolution, not the recurrence. The rank-1 transition beats its diagonal ablation by +0.19/+0.32 at 16/32 pairs, but the margin shrinks to +0.03 once both cells carry the convolution, and a state-matched Mamba-2 ties the unarmed rank-1 cell: no class claim survives. Cells that solve 32-pair recall degrade gracefully with load yet fall to chance retrieving 4 pairs from a distractor haystack--flat across lengths and transitions. Interference under sparse supervision, not capacity: a distance curriculum takes the unchanged architecture from 0.021 to 1.000. Training is a lock-in lottery--a seed either locks in or does not--and the curriculum is the lever. Lock-in rises from 1/10 to 7/10 (p=0.02); dense supervision adds nothing; at L=256 a shaped ramp reopens a boundary the uniform curriculum cannot (4/5 vs. 0/9); and at L=512, where the ramp collapses (0/6), gating it on measured accuracy locks in 6/6 (p=0.001). Bidirectional denoiser cells, reading the query before the haystack, show no measurable advantage over causal training (ten seeds), and collision-key retrieval needs two layers. Arming for recall is free on an S_5 state-tracking guardrail--the armed cell is significantly better at every depth (p<=0.0044). These replace "recurrent models are bad at recall" with a measured decomposition and two cheap interventions.

Explore similar work

CardsList
Jul 10, 2026cs.LG

Remembering Distinct Items, Not Tokens: A Learnable Dirichlet-Process Cache Between State-Space Models and Attention

Fixed-state sequence models compress an unbounded past into a bounded state, which caps their associative recall at roughly the state dimension; attention escapes the cap by keeping a key-value entry for every token, at quadratic compute and a cache that grows with the sequence. We study the middle ground: a sparse cache that allocates a slot only when an input is novel, so its size tracks the number of distinct items rather than the number of tokens. The allocation rule is the DP-means clustering rule, the small-variance limit of a Dirichlet-process mixture, used not as latent-variable inference but as the key-value memory operator for a deep recurrent backbone. We develop it in two forms, a static cache with a fixed concentration and a surprise-adaptive variant whose concentration follows the recent novelty rate. On a controlled associative-recall benchmark with redundancy we show that the cache matches full-attention recall while storing only the distinct items, that it dominates a fixed-budget eviction cache on the recall-versus-size frontier, and that on a state-space backbone it answers both a recall query and a long-range aggregate at the lowest memory of any model tested. The allocation is learnable end to end: a two-parameter novelty-threshold gate trained on the task loss alone recovers the rule exactly, whereas an over-parameterized gate fails, so the operative ingredient is the inductive bias rather than capacity. The evidence is a family of controlled mechanism studies at modest scale, with the distinct-items property confirmed on four real streams (recommendation, systems logs, clinical events, and insurance claims); a real-backbone, real-corpus language validation is pursued in a companion study.
Siddharth Pal, Viktoria Rojkova
Recurrent StateCacheSequence ModelingState Space ModelsMixture ModelsFrontier Models
AskPDF
Sep 14, 2026cs.LG

RunningTensor: Generalizing Linear Attention to Higher-Order Recurrent States

Linear attention and state-space models provide linear-time sequence modeling, but their recurrent memory remains a second-order tensor (a matrix), limiting the order of interactions that can be represented in the state. We introduce the RunningTensor, which generalizes this memory to an order-oo tensor, updated by a rank-1 outer product and read by contracting against o−1o-1 vector queries. Order 22 recovers linear attention; we study order 33 as a proof of concept, retaining both recurrent and parallel forms while remaining linear in sequence length TT and improving working memory capacity from O(W2)\mathcal{O}(W^2) to O(Wo)\mathcal{O}(W^o). On synthetic multi-query associative recall, RunningTensor outperforms linear-attention and SSM baselines. After pretraining, it also improves performance on language-understanding and non-synthetic retrieval tasks, suggesting that higher-order recurrent state can provide useful additional memory capacity beyond matrix-valued state.
Luca Herranz-Celotti, Vincent Guigue
Recurrent StateQuadratic AttentionTensor ProgramsSequence Modeling
AskPDF
Aug 31, 2026cs.CL

Kathleen Remembers: Length-Invariant One-Shot Recall Without Attention

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.
George Fountzoulas
Factual RecallMemory RetrievalCatastrophic Forgetting
AskPDF