Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

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

Hao Wu

Published

Oct 22, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

35% (Low)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Oct 22, 2026

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
0/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

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.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"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."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"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."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"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."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"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."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy, Nll

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"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."

Benchmarks and datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported metrics

accuracynll
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Expertise required
Math
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Low
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

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.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • 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.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against others mentioning MATH.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Contribution summary

  • We present Delta N-gram, a forward-only write path into that table.
  • 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…

Why it matters for eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy, nll