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

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.

Most Transformer Modifications Still Do Not Transfer at 1-3B: A 2020-2026 Update to Narang et al. (2021) with Downstream Evaluation and a Noise Floor

Narang et al. (2021) evaluated 40+ Transformer modifications at T5-base scale and concluded that most did not transfer. Five years later, the typical working regime has moved to 1-3B parameters, downstream evaluation has replaced pretraining perplexity, and a substantially different catalogue of modifications has emerged. We revisit their question by testing 20 post-2021 Transformer modifications at 1.2B and 3B under strict iso-data, iso-compute, iso-recipe control, with a multi-seed baseline noise floor and CLIMB-12 downstream evaluation as the primary metric. The central finding reproduces theirs at this curated set: most modifications do not transfer. Of the 20 modifications, only two clear Bonferroni correction at 1.2B; one of those two further fails to train stably at 3B under the shared recipe. We also find that the loss-downstream gap reported by Tay et al. (2023) enlarges several-fold for attention-output modifications: two significant failures converge to within 2-3% of baseline validation loss yet drop 6-16 CLIMB-points. We conclude that noise-floor reporting, downstream evaluation, and cross-scale stability testing are now prerequisites for architecture comparisons at 1-3B.