Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
- Stars
- 1
- Last push
- Jun 26, 2026 (4d ago)
Risk flags
- No CI pipeline detected
- No tagged releases
Sayak Dutta
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
Recurrent models must forget in order to remember, yet the state of the art decides what to erase without consulting what is stored -- the gate sees only the arriving token, not the memory it is about to modify. This memory-blind gating is one of three coupled defects in the leading delta-rule architecture (GDN-2): the value-axis erase mask wastes parameters at the scale of the value projection, and -- as we prove -- ...
mathematically prevents the WY-form triangular chunk solver that makes recurrent training competitive with Transformers. We introduce CARVE (Content-Aware Recurrent with Value Efficiency), which resolves all three problems through one principle: erase only on the key axis. This is provably necessary and sufficient for the WY-form solver to remain valid. Within it, CARVE reuses the recurrent output tensor -- already written to GPU memory -- as a free content signal for the erase gate, and replaces the per-value write-gate projection with a single scalar per head. At initialisation CARVE is bit-identical to GDN-2; any quality difference emerges from what the content gate learns. At 1.3B parameters trained on 100B tokens, CARVE achieves WikiText perplexity 15.72 (minus 0.18 vs. GDN-2, a 4.5-sigma effect), leads every recurrent baseline on nine common-sense reasoning benchmarks, and sets state of the art on every RULER retrieval probe -- at 0.4% throughput overhead, 13% lower peak memory, and 19% fewer parameters. Six formal theorems cover memory capacity, Lyapunov stability, gradient flow, expressivity separation, Pareto-optimal chunk size, and hybrid optimality.
Some benchmark signal exists in the extracted evidence, but it is not structured strongly enough yet for a confident benchmark decision.
Recurrent models must forget in order to remember, yet the state of the art decides what to erase without consulting what is stored -- the gate sees only the arriving token, not the memory it is about to modify.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 95/100, grounding 68/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
Framework baselines
Modern transformer training baseline.
Reference transformer building block implementation.
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Models
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Retrieval / indexing
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Information Retrieval
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.