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.

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