Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 30 references

GLIDE's central claim is that transformer layers differ sharply in how much they need exact softmax attention, and that allocating softmax non-uniformly — keeping it in early layers while linearizing deeper layers — cuts KV-cache I/O by up

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 09:46 UTC pith:G53BOHOM

load-bearing objection Depth-wise non-uniform hybrid attention is a plausible idea, but the paper never actually compares it against a matched uniform hybrid, so the headline Pareto claim is unearned. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24788 v1 pith:G53BOHOM submitted 2026-06-26 cs.AI cs.CLcs.LG

GLIDE: Guided Layerwise Hybrid Attention for Efficient LLM Inference

Vimal William , Ravi Tandon , Jyotikrishna Dass This is my paper
classification cs.AI cs.CLcs.LG
keywords Hybrid AttentionKV Cache OptimizationLong-Context LLM InferenceSliding Window AttentionLinear AttentionLayer-wise HeterogeneityLow-Rank AdaptationPareto Efficiency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

GLIDE is trying to establish that the usual one-size-fits-all way of hybridizing attention in LLMs is wasteful. The paper's core observation is that transformer layers differ sharply in how much they need exact softmax attention: early layers collapse if linearized, while deeper layers tolerate full linearization. GLIDE exploits this by allocating softmax non-uniformly across depth — full sliding-window softmax in early layers, partial in middle layers, fully linear in late layers. After lightweight LoRA fine-tuning, the paper reports 45–62× lower KV-cache I/O (up to 93× in one configuration) while retaining 92–96% of baseline accuracy, with up to 3.3× decoding speedup, beating uniform hybrid attention on the efficiency–accuracy frontier. If true, this would let long-context LLMs run with far less memory traffic and serve more concurrent users.

Core claim

GLIDE's central claim is that the sensitivity of attention to linearization is depth-dependent. Starting from a fully linearized model and re-introducing softmax, the paper shows that linearizing early layers drops zero-shot accuracy to roughly 36%, while linearizing middle or late layers leaves accuracy nearly unchanged. GLIDE partitions the network into three blocks and assigns δ=0 (full sliding-window softmax) to early layers, δ=α·w (partial linearization) to middle layers, and δ=w (full linearization) to late layers. After LoRA fine-tuning on instruction data, this non-uniform policy preserves 92–96% of baseline benchmark accuracy while reducing KV-cache I/O from 4000 MB/token to 43–128

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the GLIDE attention operator O_i^Glide = O_{i-w-δ}^{linear} ⊕ O_{i-w-δ+1}^{SWA}, where w is the sliding-window size, δ is the number of window positions handed to linear recurrent aggregation, and ⊕ combines the two outputs weighted by their normalizing denominators. Setting δ=0 recovers sliding-window softmax; δ=w gives pure linear attention. GLIDE's block-wise allocation reduces the search space to one scalar α∈[0,1] (δ=α·w for middle layers), and per-token decoding complexity becomes O((Lw - Σδ_l)d + Ld²), interpolating between quadratic and linear regimes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the depth-sensitivity hierarchy (early layers need softmax, late layers tolerate linearization) measured on a fully linearized Llama-3-8B variant at a 64-token window without fine-tuning transfers to pretrained Llama-3-8B and Mistral-7B at a 1024-token window after LoRA fine-tuning, and that no uniform allocation at matched KV-cache I/O can match GLIDE; the uniform-matching part is never tested.

What would settle it

Take a pretrained Llama-3-8B and LoRA-adapt it under a uniform hybrid δ (e.g., same α in all layers) versus GLIDE's (0, α, w) with equal total KV-cache I/O (same aggregate number of softmax-window tokens), and compare average accuracy on PiQA, ARC-E, ARC-C, HellaSwag, WinoGrande, MMLU. If a uniform allocation matches or beats GLIDE at the same memory traffic, the depth-sensitivity claim collapses. A second check: repeat the paired-layer linearization study on the LoRA-adapted pretrained model at w=1024; if early-layer linearization no longer collapses accuracy, the hierarchy itself may be an a

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Uniform hybrid attention is demonstrably suboptimal: at matched KV I/O, GLIDE's non-uniform allocation beats uniform and sliding-window alternatives on six reasoning benchmarks.
  • Long-context decode works where vanilla softmax runs out of memory: Llama-3-8B runs to 32K tokens with 1.4–2× lower latency than the hybrid baseline, and accumulated KV I/O at 128K tokens drops from 17.5 GB to as low as 5.2 GB.
  • LoRA fine-tuning on roughly 100K instruction samples closes most of the accuracy gap, so aggressive linearization is practical without full retraining.
  • The trade-off becomes tunable: because the whole policy is parameterized by α, a deployment can choose its softmax budget from a small set {0, w/2, 15w/16, w}.
  • The same early-sensitive/deep-tolerant pattern appears in both Llama-3-8B and Mistral-7B, suggesting the result generalizes across 7–8B class transformers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A control the paper does not run: compare GLIDE against a uniform hybrid configuration with the same total softmax budget (same aggregate KV I/O) after the same LoRA fine-tuning. If a uniform allocation matches GLIDE's accuracy, the layer-wise claim would need revision. This is our suggested test, not a paper claim.
  • The fixed early/middle/late split (roughly 11/10/11 layers) is arbitrary; a sensitivity-guided search over block boundaries could push more linearization into early layers for some tasks, potentially raising the Pareto frontier further.
  • The authors' limitation note that linear recurrent state dilutes long-range information suggests a natural extension: pair GLIDE's allocation with a mechanism that periodically refreshes or compresses the recurrent state; GLIDE's kernel-agnostic design already permits that.
  • Task-dependence is untested: if knowledge-heavy tasks need more early softmax than reasoning-heavy tasks, GLIDE's α could be scheduled per request or per task; no evidence yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. GLIDE proposes a block-wise, non-uniform hybrid attention scheme in which early transformer layers retain full sliding-window softmax attention, middle layers use a partial linearization controlled by a scalar α, and late layers are fully linearized. The paper claims that this depth-guided allocation achieves a better accuracy–KV-cache-I/O Pareto frontier than uniform hybridization, reporting up to 62× lower KV cache I/O and 3.3× decoding speedup while retaining 92–96% of baseline accuracy on Llama-3-8B and Mistral-7B, based on a motivating sensitivity study on the Liger backbone. The core comparative claim, however, is not actually tested: no uniform hybrid configuration with a matched total linearization budget and matched LoRA fine-tuning is evaluated. In addition, Algorithm 1 selects the middle-block δ using task accuracy on the same benchmarks that are later reported as the paper's results, and the motivating depth-sensitivity observation is established only on the already-linearized Liger model at w=64 without fine-tuning, not on the pretrained backbones used in the headline experiments.

Significance. The underlying hypothesis — that transformer layers differ in their tolerance to attention linearization and that this can inform non-uniform hybrid attention — is plausible and of practical interest. If properly established, it could provide useful design guidance for KV-cache-efficient inference. However, as presented, the paper does not provide evidence sufficient to support that hypothesis. The experimental design conflates linearization budget with layer placement, the sensitivity observation is not shown to transfer to the evaluated backbones, and the configuration search is performed on the evaluation set. There are no code or data artifacts, and the latency results in Table II are at odds with the speedup narrative. The manuscript is not in a form where the central claim can be accepted, and the flaws are load-bearing rather than cosmetic.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-B, Table I and Fig. 6] The central claim that non-uniform allocation outperforms uniform hybridization is not tested. Table I reports only the uniform endpoints (0,0,0) and (w,w,w), plus the GLIDE non-uniform triples. No uniform intermediate configuration with a matching aggregate linearization budget — e.g., (w/2,w/2,w/2) or (w/3,w/3,w/3) — is fine-tuned and evaluated. Consequently, the reported differences between GLIDE and the "uniform" baselines conflate two variables: how much softmax is retained and where it is placed. Since the paper's stated contribution is precisely the "where" component, this missing comparison invalidates the main comparative claim.
  2. [§III-A, Fig. 2b, and §IV-A] Observation 1 — that early layers require softmax attention while late layers tolerate full linearization — is established only on the Liger model at w=64 without fine-tuning (Section III-A, Fig. 2b). Yet the GLIDE configurations in Section IV are evaluated on pretrained Llama-3-8B and Mistral-7B at w=1024 after LoRA adaptation. The paper never demonstrates on these actual backbones that the depth-sensitivity hierarchy survives linearization, LoRA fine-tuning, or the larger window. Because the entire block allocation (early/middle/late) is derived from this observation, the transfer is load-bearing and unsupported.
  3. [§III-C, Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 chooses the middle-block δ by maximizing task accuracy on the evaluation benchmarks (line 7: TASKACCEVAL), and the same benchmarks are then reported as the final results in Table I and Fig. 6. This is selection on the evaluation set; the reported accuracies are not independent estimates of generalization. The early/middle/late partition is also read off the same sensitivity experiment that motivates GLIDE, adding further circularity. The configuration search should be performed on a held-out validation set, with the reported numbers obtained only after the configuration is fixed.
  4. [§IV-B, Table II] The latency results contradict the speedup framing. For Llama-3-8B at 32K tokens, the configurations (0,0,w), (0,w/2,w), and (0,15w/16,w) show nearly identical end-to-end latencies (2638.35, 2637.42, and 2637.54 s) despite KV-cache I/O differing from 88 to 43 MB/token. For Mistral-7B, the GLIDE configurations are not consistently faster than the uniform hybrid baseline at any sequence length. Thus the claimed 45×–62× KV-I/O reductions and 3.3× speedup do not translate into the reported end-to-end latency, and the paper offers no explanation of why the bandwidth reduction does not produce the expected latency benefit.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV-A and Table I] The window size is stated as w=1024 in the setup but appears as w=1204 in the Table I caption. This inconsistency needs correction.
  2. [Notation, §II-A and §III-B] The symbol α is used both for attention weights (αij) and for the cache sparsity factor α∈[0,1]. The paper distinguishes these, but the notation is confusing; a different symbol for cache sparsity would improve readability.
  3. [Fig. 8 (Appendix A)] Fig. 8 is referenced from Section III-A but is not described in the main text, and its caption mentions uniform configurations {0, w/4, w/2, 3w/4, w} in a way that does not match the main figures or the GLIDE configuration tuples. The figure and its relationship to the main results should be clarified.
  4. [§IV-B and Table II] The table formatting of the OOM entries (e.g., "765.92–(OOM)" with footnote markers) is unclear, and the reported latency numbers appear to be single runs with no error bars or repetition details. Some indication of variance is needed for latency claims.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

The reported accuracy and Pareto frontier are obtained by selecting δ on the evaluation benchmarks themselves (Algorithm 1), making the headline GLIDE tradeoffs in-sample fits; the claimed advantage over uniform hybrids is also confounded by unmatched total linearization.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-C, Algorithm 1 (line 7); Section IV-B, Table I and Fig. 6]
    "δ∗ ← arg maxδ∈S TASKACCEVAL(Mδ) ... Task performance is assessed on six standard reasoning and knowledge benchmarks from the language model evaluation harness: PiQA, ARC-Easy and ARC-Challenge, HellaSwag, WinoGrande, and MMLU."

    Algorithm 1 selects the middle-block linearization δ* by maximizing TASKACCEVAL(Mδ), and the paper then reports fine-tuned accuracy on the same LM-Eval task family as evidence that GLIDE configurations retain 92–96% accuracy and form a Pareto frontier. No held-out split is described. The reported accuracy of the selected configuration is the objective used to choose it, so the Pareto points are in-sample fits rather than independent predictions; the claim that depth-guided non-uniform allocation itself is responsible for the gains is therefore partly forced by the selection, not demonstrated. The early=0/late=w partition is also taken from the same sensitivity experiment (Observation 1) that the evaluation is meant to validate.

full rationale

The paper's mathematical core (Eqs. 1–3, the complexity and speedup formulas) is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. However, the empirical validation is partially circular. Algorithm 1's δ selection uses TASKACCEVAL, and Table I/Fig. 6 report accuracy on the same benchmark family (PiQA, ARC-E, ARC-C, HellaSwag, WinoG, MMLU) without a separate validation set, so the selected configurations' accuracies are optimization values. The Pareto frontier is thus an in-sample fit. Additionally, the central claim that non-uniform layer-wise allocation outperforms uniform hybridization is not cleanly tested: Table I only includes the uniform endpoints (0,0,0) and (w,w,w), not uniform intermediates with matched total linearization (e.g., (w/2,w/2,w/2)), so the comparison conflates placement with linearization budget. This is a missing-control/confound issue rather than a definitional circularity, but combined with the eval-set selection it makes the reported superiority of GLIDE's 'where' component partly circular. There is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem; references to the authors' own ViTaLity work are peripheral kernel citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central design depends on a small set of empirically fitted choices: block partition, α, window size, and LoRA hyperparameters. The sensitivity hierarchy itself is an empirical assumption borrowed from Liger. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • α (middle-block cache sparsity) = 0, 0.5, 15/16, 1; optimal selected by Algorithm 1 via TASKACCEVAL
    The middle-block δ=α·w is chosen by maximizing task accuracy on the same benchmarks used for reporting; no held-out selection.
  • Layer block partition (early/middle/late) = 1–11 / 12–21 / 22–32 for L=32
    Partition is read off the sensitivity analysis on Liger (Fig. 2b) and applied unchanged to both Llama and Mistral.
  • Sliding window size w = 1024 for evaluations, 20K for I/O profiling
    Window size controls KV cache size and complexity; it is not swept as a tradeoff and affects all I/O/latency numbers.
  • LoRA hyperparameters = rank=8, scale=8, 2 epochs, 50–100K Alpaca samples
    Tuning choices affect accuracy recovery; no sensitivity analysis is reported for these choices.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Depth-dependent sensitivity to linearization is a stable property of transformer stacks
    Observation 1 from Fig. 2 on Liger with w=64 is assumed to transfer to Llama/Mistral at w=1024/20K and after LoRA fine-tuning (Section III-A).
  • domain assumption Tokens outside the sliding window can be compressed into a fixed recurrent state without material loss
    Eqs. (1)–(3) rely on this; the Limitations section admits information dilution at long contexts.
  • domain assumption Non-learnable φ=softmax(·) feature map preserves attention quality
    Section III-B adopts the softmax kernel following prior findings; no experiments vary the kernel.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20851 in / 14523 out tokens · 129090 ms · 2026-08-02T09:46:44.724098+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

As Large Language Models scale to increasingly long contexts, the memory I/O and computational overhead of the Key-Value (KV) cache during decoding emerges as the primary throughput bottleneck. To address this, we propose GLIDE, a Guided Layerwise Hybrid Attention that strategically integrates sliding-window softmax attention with linear recurrent aggregation. GLIDE is motivated by layer-wise heterogeneity: early layers exhibit high sensitivity to softmax removal, while deeper layers demonstrate redundancy and tolerate aggressive replacement by linear alternatives. Leveraging this insight, GLIDE introduces a layer-wise adaptive mechanism wherein each layer balances an efficient linear recurrence with a variable-sized softmax window. Unlike uniform hybrid approaches, GLIDE non-uniformly compresses the softmax footprint across the model, reducing aggregate KV cache I/O while preserving expressive power where most vital. Empirical evaluations demonstrate the GLIDE achieves superior performance-efficiency tradeoffs, reducing end-to-end latency for long-context generation without compromising quality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24788 by Jyotikrishna Dass, Ravi Tandon, Vimal William.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Layer-Wise Adaptive Attention Strategy of GLIDE. (a) Attention Mechanisms: GLIDE strategically transitions from softmax attention (red) in early layers to linear attention (green) in deeper layers, concentrating expensive computation where most critical, unlike vanilla softmax, sliding window attention (SWA), or pure linear approaches. (b) Pareto Analysis: GLIDE configurations achieve 45× – 62× lower KV ca… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Analysis of Zero-Shot Accuracy Under Varying Softmax Attention Intensity (Non Fine-Tuned). (a) The δ parameter controls the Linear:Softmax ratio within each layer’s sliding window w, trading efficiency for representational fidelity. (b) Layer-wise sensitivity analysis across Early, Middle, and Late layer groups, evaluated on LM-Eval benchmarks (PiQA, ARC-e, ARC-c, HellaSwag, WinoG) with w = 64 and d = 4096… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Attention Latency Analysis Across Linearization Ratios and Baseline. Profiling Llama-3-8B decoding from 20K-token prefill across uniform linear:softmax ratios with the base window size w = 20K and model dimension d = 4096. (a) Baseline encounters OOM mid-sequence while GLIDE configurations complete decoding with stable latency, achieving 3.3× speedup at full linearization. (b) Operator breakdown: softmax (… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: KV Cache I/O Scales Linearly with Softmax Layer Proportion. Per-token KV cache memory traffic for Llama-3- 8B at 32, 000th token generation for the window size w = 20k and the model dimension d = 4096. Softmax layers retrieve the full KV cache per token; linear layers maintain fixed-size recurrent states with zero cache I/O. Transitioning from pure softmax (0:100) to 75:25 linear:softmax yields a 4× reduct… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Proposed δ-Allocation Strategy for GLIDE. Block￾wise allocation partitions the model into blocks of early, middle, and last layers based on our motivating Observation 1 (in Section III-A). Early layers retain full softmax attention (δ = 0) where representational fidelity is critical, last layers use complete linearization (δ = w) for maximum efficiency, and middle layers exhibit glide attention with δ = α … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Performance vs. KV Cache I/O Trade-off. Average task accuracy versus KV cache I/O per token for (a) Llama-3-8B and (b) Mistral-7B. Markers indicate: baseline (▲), uniform (•), non-uniform (■), and non-uniform fine-tuned (♦). Fine-tuning recovers 6–8 accuracy points, achieving 96% baseline performance at 45× lower memory bandwidth while non-uniform allocations consistently outperform uniform alternatives. r… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Accumulated KV I/O vs. Sequence Length. GLIDE configurations achieve sub-linear KV cache growth compared to baseline’s linear scaling. Progressive linearization from (0, 0, 0) to (0, 15w/16, w) reduces memory I/O while maintaining accuracy, with (0, 15w/16, w) achieving 5.2 GB at 128K tokens versus baseline’s 16.3 GB. KV I/O Efficient Reasoning Scalability. A key challenge in scaling reasoning models to lo… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Analysis of Zero-Shot Accuracy Under Varying Softmax Attention Intensity (Non Fine-Tuned). Layer-wise sensitivity analysis: initial layers require softmax attention, while end layers tolerate full linearization. We evaluate uniform configurations {0, w/4, w/2, 3w/4, w} with the base window size w = 64 and model dimension d = 4096 across all transformer layers using LM-Eval (PiQA, ARC-e, ARC-c, HellaSwag, W… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Ada-kv: Optimizing kv cache eviction by adaptive budget allocation for efficient llm inference,

    Y . Feng, J. Lv, Y . Cao, X. Xie, and S. K. Zhou, “Ada-kv: Optimizing kv cache eviction by adaptive budget allocation for efficient llm inference,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11550, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.11550

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.11550 2024

  2. [2]

    A survey on large language model acceleration based on KV cache management,

    H. LI, Y . Li, A. Tian, T. Tang, Z. Xu, X. Chen, N. HU, W. Dong, L. Qing, and L. Chen, “A survey on large language model acceleration based on KV cache management,”Transactions on Machine Learning Research,

  3. [3]

    H2o: Heavy-hitter oracle for efficient generative inference of large language models,

    Z. Zhang, Y . Sheng, T. Zhou, T. Chen, L. Zheng, R. Cai, Z. Song, Y . Tian, C. Ré, C. Barrettet al., “H2o: Heavy-hitter oracle for efficient generative inference of large language models,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 36, pp. 34 661–34 710, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2306.14048

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.14048 2023

  4. [4]

    Pyramidkv: Dynamic kv cache compression based on pyramidal information funneling,

    Z. Cai, Y . Zhang, B. Gao, Y . Liu, Y . Li, T. Liu, K. Lu, W. Xiong, Y . Dong, J. Huet al., “Pyramidkv: Dynamic kv cache compression based on pyramidal information funneling,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02069,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Snapkv: Llm knows what you are looking for before generation,

    Y . Li, Y . Huang, B. Yang, B. Venkitesh, A. Locatelli, H. Ye, T. Cai, P. Lewis, and D. Chen, “Snapkv: Llm knows what you are looking for before generation,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 22 947–22 970, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.14469

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.14469 2024

  6. [6]

    LoLCATs: On low-rank linearizing of large language models,

    M. Zhang, S. Arora, R. Chalamala, B. F. Spector, A. Wu, K. Ramesh, A. Singhal, and C. Re, “LoLCATs: On low-rank linearizing of large language models,” inThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.10254

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.10254 2025

  7. [7]

    Liger: Linearizing large language models to gated recurrent structures,

    D. Lan, W. Sun, J. Hu, J. Du, and Y . Cheng, “Liger: Linearizing large language models to gated recurrent structures,” inForty-second International Conference on Machine Learning, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.01496

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.01496 2025

  8. [8]

    Transformers are rnns: Fast autoregressive transformers with linear attention,

    A. Katharopoulos, A. Vyas, N. Pappas, and F. Fleuret, “Transformers are rnns: Fast autoregressive transformers with linear attention,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2020, pp. 5156–

    2020

  9. [9]

    The hedgehog & the porcupine: Expressive linear attentions with softmax mimicry, 2024b,

    M. Zhang, K. Bhatia, H. Kumbong, and C. Ré, “The hedgehog & the porcupine: Expressive linear attentions with softmax mimicry, 2024b,” URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2402.04347, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.04347

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.04347 2024

  10. [11]

    Longformer: The long-document transformer,

    I. Beltagy, M. E. Peters, and A. Cohan, “Longformer: The long-document transformer,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.05150, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.05150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2004.05150 2004

  11. [12]

    Mswa: Refining local attention with multi-scalewindow attention,

    Y . Xu, S. Nag, D. Li, L. Tian, and E. Barsoum, “Mswa: Refining local attention with multi-scalewindow attention,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01039, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/ arXiv.2501.01039

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.01039 2025

  12. [13]

    Get more with less: Synthesizing recurrence with kv cache compression for efficient llm inference,

    H. Dong, X. Yang, Z. Zhang, Z. Wang, Y . Chi, and B. Chen, “Get more with less: Synthesizing recurrence with kv cache compression for efficient llm inference,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09398, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.09398

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.09398 2024

  13. [14]

    Simple linear attention language models balance the recall-throughput tradeoff,

    S. Arora, S. Eyuboglu, M. Zhang, A. Timalsina, S. Alberti, D. Zinsley, J. Zou, A. Rudra, and C. Ré, “Simple linear attention language models balance the recall-throughput tradeoff,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18668,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [15]

    Leave no context behind: Efficient infinite context transformers with infini-attention,

    T. Munkhdalai, M. Faruqui, and S. Gopal, “Leave no context behind: Efficient infinite context transformers with infini-attention,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.07143, vol. 101, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.07143

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.07143 2024

  15. [16]

    Edgeinfinite: A memory-efficient infinite-context transformer for edge devices,

    J. Chen, S. Peng, D. Luo, F. Yang, R. Wu, F. Li, and X. Chen, “Edgeinfinite: A memory-efficient infinite-context transformer for edge devices,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22196, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.22196

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.22196 2025

  16. [17]

    LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,

    E. J. Hu, yelong shen, P. Wallis, Z. Allen-Zhu, Y . Li, S. Wang, L. Wang, and W. Chen, “LoRA: Low-rank adaptation of large language models,” inInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.09685

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.09685 2022

  17. [18]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.18668 10

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.18668 10

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.18668

  18. [19]

    Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model,

    R. Taori, I. Gulrajani, T. Zhang, Y . Dubois, X. Li, C. Guestrin, P. Liang, and T. B. Hashimoto, “Stanford alpaca: An instruction-following llama model,” https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca, 2023

    2023

  19. [20]

    The llama 3 herd of models,

    A. Grattafiori, A. Dubey, A. Jauhri, A. Pandey, A. Kadian, A. Al-Dahle, A. Letman, A. Mathur, A. Schelten, A. Vaughan, A. Yang, A. Fan, A. Goyal, A. Hartshorn, A. Yang, A. Mitra, A. Sravankumar, A. Korenev, A. Hinsvark, A. Rao, A. Zhang, A. Rodriguez, A. Gregerson, A. Spataru, B. Roziere, B. Biron, B. Tang, B. Chern, C. Caucheteux, C. Nayak, C. Bi, C. Mar...

  20. [21]

    Mistral 7b,

    A. Q. Jiang, A. Sablayrolles, A. Mensch, C. Bamford, D. S. Chaplot, D. de las Casas, F. Bressand, G. Lengyel, G. Lample, L. Saulnier, L. R. Lavaud, M.-A. Lachaux, P. Stock, T. L. Scao, T. Lavril, T. Wang, T. Lacroix, and W. E. Sayed, “Mistral 7b,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.06825

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.06825 2023

  21. [22]

    Flexattention: A programming model for generating fused attention variants

    J. Dong, B. FENG, D. Guessous, Y . Liang, and H. He, “Flexattention: A programming model for generating fused attention variants.” in Eighth Conference on Machine Learning and Systems, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.05496

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.05496 2025

  22. [23]

    Bridging the Divide: Reconsidering Softmax and Linear Attention

    D. Han, Y . Pu, Z. Xia, Y . Han, X. Pan, X. Li, J. Lu, S. Song, and G. Huang, “Bridging the divide: Reconsidering softmax and linear attention,”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 79 221–79 245, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.06590

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.06590 2024

  23. [24]

    ViTALiTy: Unifying Low-rank and Sparse Approximation for Vision Transformer Acceleration with a Linear Taylor Attention

    J. Dass, S. Wu, H. Shi, C. Li, Z. Ye, Z. Wang, and Y . Lin, “Vitality: Unifying low-rank and sparse approximation for vision transformer acceleration with a linear taylor attention,” in2023 IEEE International Symposium on High-Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 415–428. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2211.05109

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2211.05109 2023

  24. [25]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.21783

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.21783

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2407.21783

  25. [26]

    Efficient streaming language models with attention sinks, 2024,

    G. Xiao, Y . Tian, B. Chen, S. Han, and M. Lewis, “Efficient streaming language models with attention sinks, 2024,”URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2309.17453, vol. 1, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.17453 11 APPENDIX Overview of Attention.Consider the next token prediction using the current query qi ∈R d, where d=d model/H and H ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.17453 2024

  26. [27]

    Attention is all you need,

    A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, L. Jones, A. N. Gomez, Ł. Kaiser, and I. Polosukhin, “Attention is all you need,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 2017

  27. [30]

    Qt-vit: Improving linear attention in vit with quadratic taylor expansion,

    Y . Xu, C. Li, D. Li, X. Sheng, F. Jiang, L. Tian, and E. Barsoum, “Qt-vit: Improving linear attention in vit with quadratic taylor expansion,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 83 048– 83 067, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.52202/079017-2642

    work page doi:10.52202/079017-2642 2024

  28. [2024]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.02069

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.02069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.02069

  29. [2025]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.19442

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2412.19442

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.19442

  30. [5165]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.16236

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2006.16236

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.16236 2006