Live data from Hacker News

TransMLA: Multi-head latent attention is all you need

arxiv.org

21–30 of 38 posts

Re: TransMLA: Multi-head latent attention is all you need

#22
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this the most cited paper in AI and not the original 1943 paper who started it all?

Transformers are what made ML infinitely scalable and caused a huge amount of progress in very few years since everyone could just go scale things. However, idk how many of those papers actually even cite the transformer paper?

I just checked Google Scholar, not perfect but good for an indicative; "A logical calculus of the ideas immanent in nervous activity" [WS McCulloch, W Pitts - The bulletin of mathematical biophysics, 1943] has ~33,000 citations, and "Attention is all you need" [A Vaswani, N Shazeer, et al, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017] has ~180,000 citations.

Re: TransMLA: Multi-head latent attention is all you need

#24
I'm just following the field from the sidelines, but this looks interesting to me. Especially the increase in expressiveness that the new model allows for over GQA, at the cost of just ~10% more memory, and the fact that you can convert existing GQA models like LLaMA, Qwen etc with just a bit of fine-tuning.

Perhaps a trivial insight but I feel a lot of progress often comes in the form of generalizations, where existing approaches can be seen as special cases. Here the authors show that Group Query Attention (GQA) and Multi-Query Attention (MQA) falls out as special cases of their new model.

edit:

Adding my own summary, as I understand it.

The key to what they're doing, no pun intended, is to rely on the fact that large, high-dimensional, matrices may contain a lot of redundant information. Thus one may be able to find an good approximation which has less redundant information, by going through an intermediary stage which has fewer dimensions.

A n-by-m matrix M takes n-dimensional vectors and transforms them to m-dimensional vectors. The trick here is to replace matrix A by two matrices, L and R, which are n-by-r and r-by-m respectively, where r is smaller than n and m. This is called a low-rank approximation.

In a sense you're "straining the matrix", by forcing the information to pass through an intermediary, low-dimensional vector.

The memory savings come from the fact that matrix A has n*m entries, while L and R have n*r and r*m entries respectively. Say n = m = 100 and r = 20, that means A has 100*100 = 10k entries, while L and R have just 100*20 + 20*100 = 4k entries in total.

The trick itself is not new, for example it is also used in LoRA where an additional low-rank approximation matrix is used to tweak the output of an existing model. The low rank means there's far fewer the matrix entries, aka parameters, to train than if one had used a regular fully dense matrix.

The extra expressiveness of MLA comes from the fact that in GQA, in order to save memory, some of the matrices are actually built by gluing copies of a narrower matrix together. This means the information in the glued-up matrices are very redundant and fixed in a certain way, and thus are restricted in how they can transform the inputs.

By using the low-rank approximation instead, the information in the full, reconstructed matrices are not fixed in the same way compared to the glued-up result. Thus the inputs can be transformed in a less restrictive way, leading to the increase in expressiveness.

The GQA method saves a bit more memory compared to MLA as the narrower matrices are even smaller than the low-rank matrices in MLA, but at the cost of expressiveness.

Re: TransMLA: Multi-head latent attention is all you need

#25
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this the most cited paper in AI and not the original 1943 paper who started it all?

Transformers are what made ML infinitely scalable and caused a huge amount of progress in very few years since everyone could just go scale things. However, idk how many of those papers actually even cite the transformer paper?

As I understand, the transformer architecture is built on deep learning.

Would you say that transformers made a bigger progress RELATIVE to the progress made by deep learning? AFAIK, before the first wave of AI powered apps that were visible to users appeared thanks to deep learning in the early 10s. Users went from nothing to fancy AI features, the question is likely subjective but is the jump from nothing to fancy AI features the same as the jump from fancy AI features to GenAI in relative terms?

We can't forget that new tech builds upon older tech hence merits need to be relative

Re: TransMLA: Multi-head latent attention is all you need

#30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, it's an 8 year old reference that's been made hundreds of times. People seem to love going to the references graveyard, digging up tired and dead ones and drag them around town hoping everyone thinks they're clever. Also this was from 3 months ago.

By that argument you must also hate anything that mentions the term "considered harmful", or makes any form of derivative cultural reference (like just about every episode of the Simpsons). Why do you let it get to you?

Because attention and time are a quantity that only decreases with life.
Post reply on HN