In-Cell Learning: Deployed Language Models Can Learn New Knowledge Without Changing a Single Stored Bit

context weights & where license

Qwen3-1.7B-Base default base model, capacity, geometry, localization, lifecycle 1.7B params; HF Qwen/Qwen3-1.7B-Base Apache-2.0

Qwen3-0.6B / 4B / 8B-Base scale ladder 0.6B / 4B / 8B; HF Qwen/Qwen3-*-Base Apache-2.0

Qwen3.8-27B architecture generality: hybrid gated linear attention 27B; released Nov 2025 Apache-2.0

Mistral-7B-v0.3 second family, tokenizer, initialization 7B; HF mistralai/Mistral-7B-v0.3 Apache-2.0

Table 17: Base models used in this paper. All are used as released; no fp32 master is required at any point.

Appendix F Figure index

Figure 7: Learning–forgetting frontier at a glance: recall against cross-domain perplexity ratio for the five invariant paths and the unconstrained control (Table 1 ). The frontier bends at CellFill r{=}64 : more absorption than projected dense at half the cross-domain cost.

Figure 8: Sequential updates (§ 5.17 ): per-task recall decays geometrically ( \beta\approx 0.825 ) as the writable room is consumed; consolidation after T1 (dashed) restores plasticity at the cost of changing 19% of the codes.

Figure 9: Where knowledge is cheapest to write (§ 5.15 ): absorbed bits per million trainable parameters (x) against bits per point of cross-domain perplexity (y), one dot per partition. gate+up dominates on both axes; down_proj is worst on both.

Figure 10: The safe region (§ 5.14 ): loss along the segment from anchor to original weights falls monotonically while no weight leaves its cell; random in-cell perturbations at radius \rho cost \propto\rho^{2.4} . The useful direction and the safe region coincide.

Figure 11: Nested checkpoints (§ 6 ): recall and payload at k\in\{1,2,3,4\} refinement bits against the fp16 residual. Two bits recover 99.4% of the knowledge at 12.5% of the payload.

█

A note on how numbers are reported. Every table in this paper is generated from archived result files by scripts/make_tables.py ; cells carry the seed count they average over, and single-seed numbers are marked. Where an earlier internal draft reported a different number, the discrepancy is stated in the text together with its cause (three cases: single-seed noise, a rehearsal-fraction confound, and an in-domain metric contaminated by rehearsal). The archived files are the source of truth.