Skip to content

Does the placement rule generalize to other base architectures? #2

Description

@ecloud-bh

The finding

Spreading linear layers between softmax "anchors" costs far less quality than clustering them in a contiguous block, at an identical layer budget:

  • contiguous 8 layers: −4.7 MMLU
  • spread 8 layers: −0.7 MMLU

The interpretation is cross-layer error compounding: the interleaved softmax layers re-anchor the residual stream and stop the drift from accumulating. We verified the effect in both regimes we could measure — untrained perplexity and post-co-training TurkishMMLU.

The open question

This was measured on one architecture: Erk-14B, i.e. Qwen3-14B (40 layers, GQA). We do not know whether the rule is a property of linear-attention hybrids in general or of this specific depth / head configuration.

What would settle it

Run the placement sweep (contiguous vs spread, same layer count) on a different base — a different depth, a different GQA ratio, or a non-Qwen family — and report the degradation for both placements under one protocol. scripts/04_placement.py does this with saved GDN initializations and requires no co-training, so it is comparatively cheap.

If the effect holds, "spread, don't cluster" becomes a transferable design rule for attention hybrids rather than an observation about one model.

Activity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    help wantedExtra attention is neededmeasurementBir ölçüm gerektirirresearch questionAçık araştırma sorusu — ölçüm bekliyor

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions