惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

C
Check Point Blog
IT之家
IT之家
V
Visual Studio Blog
The Cloudflare Blog
博客园 - 司徒正美
Jina AI
Jina AI
博客园_首页
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
美团技术团队
S
SegmentFault 最新的问题
博客园 - 聂微东
人人都是产品经理
人人都是产品经理
T
Tailwind CSS Blog
罗磊的独立博客
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
量子位
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
Hugging Face - Blog
Hugging Face - Blog
博客园 - 【当耐特】
博客园 - 三生石上(FineUI控件)
爱范儿
爱范儿
博客园 - Franky
Last Week in AI
Last Week in AI
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知

cs.CL updates on arXiv.org

Playing Along: Learning a Double-Agent Defender for Belief Steering via Theory of Mind RPA-Check: A Multi-Stage Automated Framework for Evaluating Dynamic LLM-based Role-Playing Agents A Triadic Suffix Tokenization Scheme for Numerical Reasoning Hidden Measurement Error in LLM Pipelines Distorts Annotation, Evaluation, and Benchmarking Synthius-Mem: Brain-Inspired Hallucination-Resistant Persona Memory Achieving 94.4% Memory Accuracy and 99.6% Adversarial Robustness on LoCoMo Time is Not a Label: Continuous Phase Rotation for Temporal Knowledge Graphs and Agentic Memory NovBench: Evaluating Large Language Models on Academic Paper Novelty Assessment Policy Split: Incentivizing Dual-Mode Exploration in LLM Reinforcement with Dual-Mode Entropy Regularization METER: Evaluating Multi-Level Contextual Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models Think Before you Write: QA-Guided Reasoning for Character Descriptions in Books METRO: Towards Strategy Induction from Expert Dialogue Transcripts for Non-collaborative Dialogues Retrieval as Generation: A Unified Framework with Self-Triggered Information Planning Do LLMs Know Tool Irrelevance? Demystifying Structural Alignment Bias in Tool Invocations Enhancing Multimodal Large Language Models for Ancient Chinese Character Evolution Analysis via Glyph-Driven Fine-Tuning Polyglot Teachers: Evaluating Language Models for Multilingual Synthetic Data Generation Exploring Knowledge Conflicts for Faithful LLM Reasoning: Benchmark and Method CocoaBench: Evaluating Unified Digital Agents in the Wild MathAgent: Adversarial Evolution of Constraint Graphs for Mathematical Reasoning Data Synthesis Evaluating Memory Capability in Continuous Lifelog Scenario How Robust Are Large Language Models for Clinical Numeracy? An Empirical Study on Numerical Reasoning Abilities in Clinical Contexts Efficient Training for Cross-lingual Speech Language Models Shared Emotion Geometry Across Small Language Models: A Cross-Architecture Study of Representation, Behavior, and Methodological Confounds A Systematic Analysis of the Impact of Persona Steering on LLM Capabilities Uncertainty-Aware Web-Conditioned Scientific Fact-Checking When Valid Signals Fail: Regime Boundaries Between LLM Features and RL Trading Policies When Verification Fails: How Compositionally Infeasible Claims Escape Rejection Mem$^2$Evolve: Towards Self-Evolving Agents via Co-Evolutionary Capability Expansion and Experience Distillation AOP-Smart: A RAG-Enhanced Large Language Model Framework for Adverse Outcome Pathway Analysis OccuBench: Evaluating AI Agents on Real-World Professional Tasks via Language Environment Simulation Advancing Polish Language Modeling through Tokenizer Optimization in the Bielik v3 7B and 11B Series
Coupled Query-Key Dynamics for Attention
Barak Gahtan, Alex M. Bronstein · 2026-04-02 · via cs.CL updates on arXiv.org

Standard scaled dot-product attention computes scores from static, independent projections of the input. We show that evolving queries and keys \emph{jointly} through shared learned dynamics before scoring - which we call \textbf{coupled QK dynamics} - improves language modeling perplexity and training stability. On WikiText-103 at 60M parameters, coupled dynamics achieves 22.55--22.62 perplexity vs.\ 24.22 for standard attention ($-$6.6--6.9\%), with only 0.11\% additional parameters (shared across both instantiations). A structural ablation isolates coupling as the active ingredient: a symplectic (Hamiltonian) and a non-symplectic (Euler) integrator perform identically when both couple Q and K, while an uncoupled MLP baseline of matched capacity reaches only 23.81 with 8$\times$ higher seed variance. The integration step count (1--7) is similarly irrelevant - a single coupled step suffices. A compute-matched comparison reveals that coupling is a \emph{sample-efficiency} mechanism: standard attention trained for 2.4$\times$ longer (matching wall-clock) reaches the same perplexity, but requires 2.4$\times$ more tokens. The advantage scales to 150M ($-$6.7\%) but narrows at 350M ($-$1.0\%), where Differential Attention (18.93) overtakes coupled dynamics (19.35). The benefit is corpus-dependent: coupling helps on domain-coherent text (WikiText-103 $-$6.6\%, PubMed $-$4.5\%) but degrades on heterogeneous web text ($+$10.3\%) and shows no benefit on GLUE. We characterize when coupling helps and when it does not, providing practical guidelines.