Papers
arxiv:2607.07953

Linear Attention Architectures: Mechanisms, Trade-offs, and Cross-Layer Routing

Published on Jul 8
· Submitted by
Tommaso Cerruti
on Jul 10
Authors:
,
,
,

Abstract

A comparative analysis of softmax attention and recurrent linear-attention architectures examines their expressivity, memory management, and training efficiency across different parameter scales and sequence lengths.

Self-attention lets each token retrieve information from the full context, but its quadratic cost in sequence length limits training and inference at long context. This paper presents a comparative study of softmax attention and four recent recurrent linear-attention architectures: DeltaNet, Gated DeltaNet, Kimi Delta Attention, and Gated DeltaNet-2. We express these mechanisms in a common recurrent-memory notation, making explicit how they differ in expressivity, memory decay, erase and write control, training throughput, and implementation complexity. Our experiments center on 350M-parameter models trained for 15B tokens, and include optimizer and learning-rate comparisons, hybrid-versus-pure stack comparisons, sequence-length runtime measurements, larger DeltaNet runs at 1.3B and 3B parameters, and a small set of downstream evaluations. The reported speed results measure training throughput and iteration time; we do not provide an empirical inference-speed benchmark. Within the reported 350M-parameter, 15B-token sweep, Kimi Delta Attention with Muon reaches the lowest final validation loss, a pure Gated DeltaNet stack trained with AdamW has the highest normalized training throughput, hybrid stacks generally improve loss at a throughput cost, and Muon consistently lowers final validation loss relative to AdamW in the matched architecture settings we evaluate. We introduce and evaluate lightweight cross-layer routing mechanisms for DeltaNet-style memories. The most natural DeltaNet-inspired formulation, forwarding a lower layer's delta-rule write error into the next layer's value target, does not improve over matched baselines. Routing into the aligned hidden stream and forwarding the write value instead yields a modest improvement in the matched runs we report: Cross-Layer Value Routing (CLVR) lowers final validation loss for both DeltaNet and Gated DeltaNet.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter

We compare several recent recurrent linear-attention architectures —DeltaNet, Gated DeltaNet, Kimi Delta Attention, and Gated DeltaNet-2 — in a shared recurrent-memory notation and empirical setup. The report focuses on practical trade-offs among validation loss, training throughput, optimizer sensitivity, hybrid vs. pure stacks, and sequence-length scaling, and also introduces a lightweight cross-layer routing variant for DeltaNet-style memories.

This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.

The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API

Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!

If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space

You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2607.07953
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.07953 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.07953 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2607.07953 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 2