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 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.

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 1