cs.CLOct 22, 2026

Delta N-gram: Forward-Only Continual Writing into a Language Model's Native N-gram Memory

Authors: Hao Wu

Organizations: Illinois Institute of Technology

Abstract

Our previous analysis found that a model's native hashed N-gram table is where continual updates disturb the base least, but its writes needed backpropagation and changed the pretrained table. We present Delta N-gram, a forward-only write path into that table. The pretrained table T^0 is never modified. Evidence is written into a sparse patch Δon the rows it addresses: a 4.1M-parameter writer emits a target and a gate per (position, hash head) event, and a block-averaged delta rule keeps each row a convex combination of its old value and the gated targets. The writer is trained offline on raw text with the pretraining objective; at use time writing takes forward passes only, and clearing Δrestores the original model. A 0.6B prototype trained to answer questions keeps 16/16 facts after a second write; online gradient writes keep 2--4/16. We study two writers: a plain writer that encodes evidence with the T^0-only model, and a delta writer that reads its current memory while encoding. On Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, the plain writer's memory is document-specific: on 64 held-out news events it lowers continuation NLL by 0.068 nats/token against empty memory and by 0.024 against another document's memory, and 0.063 and 0.013 after 16 intervening articles. The delta writer's memory is more document-specific and keeps more of it under distraction (70% vs 54%). Over 35,000 writes on our previous seven-task chain both writers stay stable and the delta writer drifts less (layer-2 math drift 176% vs 188%); later accuracy changes by -0.26/-0.52pp (-7.29pp for gradient updates) and small-k_i drift is 17.9/17.5% (39.2%). Acquisition is negative, and general-input drift reaches 32.8% (20.75%): format rows read by every example grow to 4--12 times their pretrained norm. Zeroing eight such rows removes over 98% of layer-2 drift on math inputs, together with their NLL gain.

Figures & tables

Explore similar work

Oct 10, 2026

Representation Drift in Continual Learning: LoRA versus N-gram Memory

A language model that keeps learning online must not slowly erode its own base capabilities. We ask which part of a modern LLM should absorb continual updates, by measuring how each choice changes the model's internal representations. On a 48-layer mixture-of-experts model with a native pretrained N-gram memory, we train a seven-task chain under three update mechanisms with identical data and budgets: updating only the N-gram memory table, continually training one shared LoRA adapter, and training a fresh LoRA per task that is merged into the backbone. We capture fixed-context representations at every layer and task boundary. Updating only the N-gram memory changes the base model's representations of general math and code inputs by 26%/15% (relative RMS), against 64%/35% for merged and 97%/39% for shared LoRA. This drift does not grow with the number of tasks: it reaches 25% after the first task and stays there for all seven, while both LoRA variants keep accumulating. Its generic behaviour is essentially unchanged (no code problem lost, math NLL -0.01), and every change is confined to inspectable, reversible table rows. The cost appears elsewhere: N-gram memory acquires new tasks more weakly and its stored tasks interfere with one another, losing as much old-task NLL as shared LoRA. We show that this forgetting is governed by drift on the learned tasks' own inputs, measured from the checkpoint at which each was learned, not by generic drift (Spearman rho=0.85; rho=0.71 on Llama-3-8B), and we derive the exact relations behind it: with a frozen head, every pairwise logit margin changes by the projection of drift onto a head-difference direction. These results support a design principle for long-running online learning: write new knowledge only into the memory table and keep the backbone fixed; the remaining problem, interference between stored tasks, then lies inside the memory.
Jun 25, 2026

Erase-then-Delta Attention: Decoupling Erase and Write Addresses in Delta-Rule Linear Attention

Delta-rule linear attention improves recurrent memory updates by correcting what is already stored at the current write address before writing new content. However, the active correction is still anchored to that same write address. As a result, stale information stored at a different address cannot be actively removed before new content is written elsewhere. We propose Erase-then-Delta Attention (EDA), a memory update rule that decouples where to erase from where to write. The key insight is that recurrent memory models should not only correct the current write, but also selectively suppress outdated memory at an independently chosen address. Concretely, our method first applies a targeted erase step along a learned erase direction, and then performs the standard delta-style corrective write along the current write direction. This preserves the corrective behavior of delta-rule updates while expanding their memory-management capacity. Language-model pretraining experiments across dense 2.5B and MoE 25B-A2.8B model families show that EDA performs best in both settings. The gain persists after 80B-token long-context midtraining of the MoE models, where EDA also performs best in long-context evaluations from 4k to 128k contexts. A compact update analysis and memory-state probes suggest why: EDA keeps the delta-rule corrective write intact while allocating an additional cleanup path most strongly when passive decay is weak. These results suggest that recurrent memory models should decide not only what to write, but also what stale information to erase and where.
May 21, 2026

Gated DeltaNet-2: Decoupling Erase and Write in Linear Attention

Linear attention replaces the unbounded cache of softmax attention with a fixed-size recurrent state, reducing sequence mixing to linear time and decoding to constant memory. The hard part is not just what to forget, but how to edit this compressed memory without scrambling existing associations. Delta-rule models subtract the current read before writing a new value, and Kimi Delta Attention (KDA) sharpens forgetting with channel-wise decay. But the active edit still uses a single scalar gate to control two different things: how much old content to erase on the key side and how much new content to commit on the value side. We introduce Gated DeltaNet-2, which generalizes both Gated DeltaNet and KDA by inheriting adaptive forgetting and channel-wise decay while addressing their shared limitation, the scalar tie between erasing and writing. Gated Delta Rule-2 separates these roles with a channel-wise erase gate b_t and a channel-wise write gate w_t, reducing to KDA when both gates collapse to the same scalar and to Gated DeltaNet when the decay also collapses. We derive a fast-weight update view, a chunkwise WY algorithm with channel-wise decay absorbed into asymmetric erase factors, and a gate-aware backward pass that preserves efficient parallel training. At 1.3B parameters trained on 100B FineWeb-Edu tokens, Gated DeltaNet-2 achieves the strongest overall results among Mamba-2, Gated DeltaNet, KDA, and Mamba-3 variants across language modeling, commonsense reasoning, and retrieval. Its advantage is most pronounced on long-context RULER needle-in-a-haystack benchmarks, where it improves the evaluated multi-key retrieval setting and remains strong in both recurrent and hybrid settings. Code is available at https://github.com/NVlabs/GatedDeltaNet-2.