Table of Links Abstract and 1. Introduction Abstract and 1. Introduction 1.1 Syllogisms composition 1.1 Syllogisms composition 1.2 Hardness of long compositions 1.2 Hardness of long compositions 1.3 Hardness of global reasoning 1.3 Hardness of global reasoning 1.4 Our contributions 1.4 Our contributions Results on the local reasoning barrier 2.1 Defining locality and auto-regressive locality 2.2 Transformers require low locality: formal results 2.3 Agnostic scratchpads cannot break the locality Scratchpads to break the locality 3.1 Educated scratchpad 3.2 Inductive Scratchpads Conclusion, Acknowledgments, and References Results on the local reasoning barrier 2.1 Defining locality and auto-regressive locality 2.2 Transformers require low locality: formal results 2.3 Agnostic scratchpads cannot break the locality Results on the local reasoning barrier Results on the local reasoning barrier 2.1 Defining locality and auto-regressive locality 2.1 Defining locality and auto-regressive locality 2.2 Transformers require low locality: formal results 2.2 Transformers require low locality: formal results 2.3 Agnostic scratchpads cannot break the locality 2.3 Agnostic scratchpads cannot break the locality Scratchpads to break the locality 3.1 Educated scratchpad 3.2 Inductive Scratchpads Scratchpads to break the locality 3.1 Educated scratchpad 3.1 Educated scratchpad 3.2 Inductive Scratchpads 3.2 Inductive Scratchpads Conclusion, Acknowledgments, and References Conclusion, Acknowledgments, and References Conclusion, Acknowledgments, and References A. Further related literature A. Further related literature B. Additional experiments B. Additional experiments C. Experiment and implementation details C. Experiment and implementation details D. Proof of Theorem 1 D. Proof of Theorem 1 E. Comment on Lemma 1 E. Comment on Lemma 1 F. Discussion on circuit complexity connections F. Discussion on circuit complexity connections G. More experiments with ChatGPT G. More experiments with ChatGPT 4 Conclusion This paper shows that for the learning objective and in contrast to expressivity results, Transformers trained from scratch have a ‘local reasoning barrier’ quantified by the distribution locality: if the target requires a global composition of the inputs, Transformers will not efficiently learn. The locality measure has a simpler form and broader applicability range than prior measures as discussed in Appendix A.2, it also has tighter applicability for Transformer. The measure is currently defined for weak learning (inverse-polynomial or constant edge), and a natural next step is to consider stronger learning requirements with ‘locality leap’, e.g., expanding the current work in the direction of [28]. Investigating the role of curriculum learning is another natural direction and we provide preliminary results here in Appendix B.2. The locality is also defined in the autoregressive setting, to better quantify when scratchpads can break targets into easier sub-targets. Two negative results are shown for scratchpads: agnostic scratchpads still suffer from the locality barrier, and fully educated scratchpads can have poor OOD generalization. This motivates the introduction of the inductive scratchpad. The inductive scratchpad can be used for a broad range of reasoning/algorithmic tasks and can easily be integrated into Transformers. The inductive scratchpad is independent of the number of reasoning steps since the model only learns the induction function. Consequently, the model naturally generalizes to inputs requiring different numbers of reasoning steps. This gives improvements of OOD/length generalization for the cycle task (Figure 4b), parity (Figure 5a), and addition (Figure 5b). Another interesting aspect is whether the model can use an inductive behavior on new tasks if it was pretrained on prior inductive tasks. Note that the inductive behavior of the inductive scratchpad is only determined by two special tokens. Thus, in principle, models can generate these special tokens and go into the inductive state for other tasks if pretrained on inductive data. We leave the general investigations of pretrained models and the automated learning of more general scratchpads, capitalizing on the measures defined here, to future works. Acknowledgments We thank Samira Abnar, Tatiana Likhomanenko, Joshua Susskind, and Russ Webb for stimulating discussions and useful feedback on the research of this paper, as well as Etai Littwin and Preetum Nakkiran for giving feedback on the paper’s writing. References [1] Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017. [2] Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020. [3] Ibrahim Alabdulmohsin, Behnam Neyshabur, and Xiaohua Zhai. Revisiting neural scaling laws in language and vision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.06640, 2022. [4] David Saxton, Edward Grefenstette, Felix Hill, and Pushmeet Kohli. Analysing mathematical reasoning abilities of neural models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.01557, 2019. [5] Aitor Lewkowycz, Anders Andreassen, David Dohan, Ethan Dyer, Henryk Michalewski, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Cem Anil, Imanol Schlag, Theo Gutman-Solo, et al. Solving quantitative reasoning problems with language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.14858, 2022. [6] Chiyuan Zhang, Maithra Raghu, Jon M. Kleinberg, and Samy Bengio. Pointer value retrieval: A new benchmark for understanding the limits of neural network generalization. ArXiv, abs/2107.12580, 2021. [7] Justin Johnson, Bharath Hariharan, Laurens Van Der Maaten, Li Fei-Fei, C Lawrence Zitnick, and Ross Girshick. Clevr: A diagnostic dataset for compositional language and elementary visual reasoning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2901–2910, 2017. [8] Anton Bakhtin, Laurens van der Maaten, Justin Johnson, Laura Gustafson, and Ross Girshick. Phyre: A new benchmark for physical reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019. [9] Petar Veličković, Adrià Puigdomènech Badia, David Budden, Razvan Pascanu, Andrea Banino, Misha Dashevskiy, Raia Hadsell, and Charles Blundell. The clrs algorithmic reasoning benchmark. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15659, 2022. [10] Sadegh Mahdavi, Kevin Swersky, Thomas Kipf, Milad Hashemi, Christos Thrampoulidis, and Renjie Liao. Towards better out-of-distribution generalization of neural algorithmic reasoning tasks. ArXiv, 2211.00692, 2022. [11] Cem Anil, Yuhuai Wu, Anders Andreassen, Aitor Lewkowycz, Vedant Misra, Vinay Ramasesh, Ambrose Slone, Guy Gur-Ari, Ethan Dyer, and Behnam Neyshabur. Exploring length generalization in large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.04901, 2022. [12] Emmanuel Abbe and Colin Sandon. Polynomial-time universality and limitations of deep learning. Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 76(11):3493–3549, 2023. [13] Emmanuel Abbe and Enric Boix-Adsera. On the non-universality of deep learning: quantifying the cost of symmetry. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 17188–17201. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022. [14] Michael Kearns. Efficient noise-tolerant learning from statistical queries. J. ACM, 45(6):983–1006, November 1998. [15] Emmanuel Abbe and Colin Sandon. On the universality of deep learning. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M. F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 20061–20072. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. [16] William Merrill and Ashish Sabharwal. The expressive power of transformers with chain of thought. ArXiv, abs/2310.07923, 2023. [17] Ruoqi Shen, Sébastien Bubeck, Ronen Eldan, Yin Tat Lee, Yuanzhi Li, and Yi Zhang. Positional description matters for transformers arithmetic. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.14737, 2023. [18] Shai Shalev-Shwartz and Shai Ben-David. Understanding Machine Learning: From Theory to Algorithms. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA, 2014. [19] Vitaly Feldman. A general characterization of the statistical query complexity. arXiv preprint arXiv:1608.02198, 2016. [20] Ryan O’Donnell. Analysis of Boolean Functions. Cambridge University Press, 2014. [21] Michael Hahn and Mark Rofin. Why are sensitive functions hard for transformers? arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.09963, 2024. [22] Arthur Jacot, Franck Gabriel, and Clément Hongler. Neural tangent kernel: Convergence and generalization in neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018. [23] Corinna Cortes, Mehryar Mohri, and Afshin Rostamizadeh. Algorithms for learning kernels based on centered alignment. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 13(1):795–828, mar 2012. [24] Emmanuel Abbe, Elisabetta Cornacchia, Jan Hazla, and Christopher Marquis. An initial alignment between neural network and target is needed for gradient descent to learn, 2022. [25] Gerard Ben Arous, Reza Gheissari, and Aukosh Jagannath. Online stochastic gradient descent on non-convex losses from high-dimensional inference. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 22:106–1, 2021. [26] Joan Bruna, Loucas Pillaud-Vivien, and Aaron Zweig. On Single Index Models beyond Gaussian Data. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2307.15804, July 2023. [27] Alex Damian, Loucas Pillaud-Vivien, Jason D. Lee, and Joan Bruna. Computational-Statistical Gaps in Gaussian Single-Index Models. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2403.05529, March 2024. [28] Emmanuel Abbe, Enric Boix Adsera, and Theodor Misiakiewicz. Sgd learning on neural networks: leap complexity and saddle-to-saddle dynamics. In The Thirty Sixth Annual Conference on Learning Theory, pages 2552–2623. PMLR, 2023. [29] Alec Radford, Jeff Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, and Ilya Sutskever. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners, 2019. [30] William Merrill and Ashish Sabharwal. The parallelism tradeoff: Limitations of log-precision transformers. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 11:531–545, 2023. [31] Emmanuel Abbe, Pritish Kamath, Eran Malach, Colin Sandon, and Nathan Srebro. On the power of differentiable learning versus PAC and SQ learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, 2021. [32] Maxwell Nye, Anders Johan Andreassen, Guy Gur-Ari, Henryk Michalewski, Jacob Austin, David Bieber, David Dohan, Aitor Lewkowycz, Maarten Bosma, David Luan, Charles Sutton, and Augustus Odena. Show your work: Scratchpads for intermediate computation with language models, 2021. [33] Eran Malach. Auto-Regressive Next-Token Predictors are Universal Learners. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2309.06979, September 2023. [34] Jared Kaplan, Sam McCandlish, Tom Henighan, Tom B Brown, Benjamin Chess, Rewon Child, Scott Gray, Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, and Dario Amodei. Scaling laws for neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361, 2020. [35] Chiyuan Zhang, Samy Bengio, Moritz Hardt, Benjamin Recht, and Oriol Vinyals. Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalization, 2016. [36] Vitaly Feldman and Chiyuan Zhang. What neural networks memorize and why: Discovering the long tail via influence estimation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:2881–2891, 2020. [37] Nicholas Carlini, Daphne Ippolito, Matthew Jagielski, Katherine Lee, Florian Tramer, and Chiyuan Zhang. Quantifying memorization across neural language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.07646, 2022. [38] Nikhil Kandpal, Eric Wallace, and Colin Raffel. Deduplicating training data mitigates privacy risks in language models. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 10697–10707. PMLR, 2022. [39] Sadegh Mahdavi, Renjie Liao, and Christos Thrampoulidis. Memorization capacity of multi-head attention in transformers. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. [40] Yi Zhang, Arturs Backurs, Sébastien Bubeck, Ronen Eldan, Suriya Gunasekar, and Tal Wagner. Unveiling transformers with lego: a synthetic reasoning task. arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.04301, 2022. [41] Wojciech Zaremba and Ilya Sutskever. Learning to execute. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.4615, 2014. [42] Brenden Lake and Marco Baroni. Generalization without systematicity: On the compositional skills of sequence-to-sequence recurrent networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 2873–2882. PMLR, 2018. [43] Dieuwke Hupkes, Verna Dankers, Mathijs Mul, and Elia Bruni. Compositionality decomposed: How do neural networks generalise? Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 67:757–795, 2020. [44] Emmanuel Abbe, Samy Bengio, Aryo Lotfi, and Kevin Rizk. Generalization on the unseen, logic reasoning and degree curriculum. In Andreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and Jonathan Scarlett, editors, Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 31–60. PMLR, 23–29 Jul 2023. [45] Nayoung Lee, Kartik Sreenivasan, Jason D. Lee, Kangwook Lee, and Dimitris Papailiopoulos. Teaching arithmetic to small transformers. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. [46] Peter Shaw, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Ashish Vaswani. Self-attention with relative position representations. In North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018. [47] Zihang Dai, Zhilin Yang, Yiming Yang, Jaime G. Carbonell, Quoc V. Le, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Transformer-xl: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019. [48] Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J. Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(140):1–67, 2020. [49] Ofir Press, Noah Smith, and Mike Lewis. Train short, test long: Attention with linear biases enables input length extrapolation. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. [50] Jianlin Su, Murtadha Ahmed, Yu Lu, Shengfeng Pan, Wen Bo, and Yunfeng Liu. Roformer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding. Neurocomputing, 568:127063, 2024. [51] Róbert Csordás, Kazuki Irie, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. The devil is in the detail: Simple tricks improve systematic generalization of transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.12284, 2021. [52] Santiago Ontanon, Joshua Ainslie, Zachary Fisher, and Vaclav Cvicek. Making transformers solve compositional tasks. In Smaranda Muresan, Preslav Nakov, and Aline Villavicencio, editors, Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3591–3607, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022. Association for Computational Linguistics. [53] Amirhossein Kazemnejad, Inkit Padhi, Karthikeyan Natesan Ramamurthy, Payel Das, and Siva Reddy. The impact of positional encoding on length generalization in transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19466, 2023. [54] Mostafa Dehghani, Stephan Gouws, Oriol Vinyals, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Łukasz Kaiser. Universal transformers, 2019. [55] DeLesley Hutchins, Imanol Schlag, Yuhuai Wu, Ethan Dyer, and Behnam Neyshabur. Block-recurrent transformers. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:33248–33261, 2022. [56] Angeliki Giannou, Shashank Rajput, Jy-Yong Sohn, Kangwook Lee, Jason D. Lee, and Dimitris Papailiopoulos. Looped transformers as programmable computers. In Andreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and Jonathan Scarlett, editors, Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 11398–11442. PMLR, 23–29 Jul 2023. [57] Alex Graves. Adaptive computation time for recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.08983, 2016. [58] Róbert Csordás, Kazuki Irie, and Jürgen Schmidhuber. The neural data router: Adaptive control flow in transformers improves systematic generalization. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. [59] Nikita Nangia and Samuel R. Bowman. Listops: A diagnostic dataset for latent tree learning. ArXiv, abs/1804.06028, 2018. [60] Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models, 2023. [61] Takeshi Kojima, Shixiang Shane Gu, Machel Reid, Yutaka Matsuo, and Yusuke Iwasawa. Large language models are zero-shot reasoners, 2023. [62] Hattie Zhou, Azade Nova, Hugo Larochelle, Aaron Courville, Behnam Neyshabur, and Hanie Sedghi. Teaching algorithmic reasoning via in-context learning, 2022. [63] Jack Lanchantin, Shubham Toshniwal, Jason Weston, Sainbayar Sukhbaatar, et al. Learning to reason and memorize with self-notes. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. [64] Sachin Goyal, Ziwei Ji, Ankit Singh Rawat, Aditya Krishna Menon, Sanjiv Kumar, and Vaishnavh Nagarajan. Think before you speak: Training language models with pause tokens. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. [65] Jiashuo Sun, Yi Luo, Yeyun Gong, Chen Lin, Yelong Shen, Jian Guo, and Nan Duan. Enhancing chain-of-thoughts prompting with iterative bootstrapping in large language models, 2024. [66] Antonia Creswell, Murray Shanahan, and Irina Higgins. Selection-inference: Exploiting large language models for interpretable logical reasoning, 2022. [67] Samy Jelassi, Stéphane d’Ascoli, Carles Domingo-Enrich, Yuhuai Wu, Yuanzhi Li, and François Charton. Length generalization in arithmetic transformers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.15400, 2023. [68] Hattie Zhou, Arwen Bradley, Etai Littwin, Noam Razin, Omid Saremi, Josh Susskind, Samy Bengio, and Preetum Nakkiran. What algorithms can transformers learn? a study in length generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.16028, 2023. [69] Jian Liu, Leyang Cui, Hanmeng Liu, Dandan Huang, Yile Wang, and Yue Zhang. Logiqa: A challenge dataset for machine reading comprehension with logical reasoning, 2020. [70] Dheeru Dua, Yizhong Wang, Pradeep Dasigi, Gabriel Stanovsky, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. Drop: A reading comprehension benchmark requiring discrete reasoning over paragraphs, 2019. [71] Koustuv Sinha, Shagun Sodhani, Jin Dong, Joelle Pineau, and William L. Hamilton. Clutrr: A diagnostic benchmark for inductive reasoning from text, 2019. [72] Bo Wu, Shoubin Yu, Zhenfang Chen, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Chuang Gan. Star: A benchmark for situated reasoning in real-world videos. In Thirty-fifth Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), 2021. [73] Santiago Ontanon, Joshua Ainslie, Vaclav Cvicek, and Zachary Fisher. Logicinference: A new dataset for teaching logical inference to seq2seq models, 2022. [74] Heng Wang, Shangbin Feng, Tianxing He, Zhaoxuan Tan, Xiaochuang Han, and Yulia Tsvetkov. Can language models solve graph problems in natural language?, 2024. [75] Bahare Fatemi, Jonathan Halcrow, and Bryan Perozzi. Talk like a graph: Encoding graphs for large language models, 2023. [76] Xikun Zhang, Antoine Bosselut, Michihiro Yasunaga, Hongyu Ren, Percy Liang, Christopher D. Manning, and Jure Leskovec. Greaselm: Graph reasoning enhanced language models for question answering, 2022. [77] Kewei Cheng, Nesreen K. Ahmed, and Yizhou Sun. Neural compositional rule learning for knowledge graph reasoning, 2023. [78] Theo Olausson, Alex Gu, Ben Lipkin, Cedegao Zhang, Armando Solar-Lezama, Joshua Tenenbaum, and Roger Levy. Linc: A neurosymbolic approach for logical reasoning by combining language models with first-order logic provers. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023. [79] Chengxuan Ying, Tianle Cai, Shengjie Luo, Shuxin Zheng, Guolin Ke, Di He, Yanming Shen, and Tie-Yan Liu. Do transformers really perform bad for graph representation?, 2021. [80] Oshin Agarwal, Heming Ge, Siamak Shakeri, and Rami Al-Rfou. Knowledge graph based synthetic corpus generation for knowledge-enhanced language model pre-training, 2021. [81] Bowen Jin, Wentao Zhang, Yu Zhang, Yu Meng, Xinyang Zhang, Qi Zhu, and Jiawei Han. Patton: Language model pretraining on text-rich networks, 2023. [82] Emmanuel Abbe, Samy Bengio, Elisabetta Cornacchia, Jon Kleinberg, Aryo Lotfi, Maithra Raghu, and Chiyuan Zhang. Learning to reason with neural networks: Generalization, unseen data and boolean measures. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:2709–2722, 2022. [83] Emmanuel Abbe, Enric Boix-Adsera, and Theodor Misiakiewicz. The merged-staircase property: a necessary and nearly sufficient condition for SGD learning of sparse functions on two-layer neural networks, COLT, 2022. [84] Gail Weiss, Yoav Goldberg, and Eran Yahav. Thinking like transformers. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11080–11090. PMLR, 2021. [85] Yoshua Bengio, Jérôme Louradour, Ronan Collobert, and Jason Weston. Curriculum learning. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML ’09, page 41–48, New York, NY, USA, 2009. Association for Computing Machinery. [86] Eran Malach, Pritish Kamath, Emmanuel Abbe, and Nathan Srebro. Quantifying the benefit of using differentiable learning over tangent kernels. In Marina Meila and Tong Zhang, editors, Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 7379–7389. PMLR, 18–24 Jul 2021. [87] Elisabetta Cornacchia and Elchanan Mossel. A mathematical model for curriculum learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.13833, 2023. [88] Emmanuel Abbe, Elisabetta Cornacchia, and Aryo Lotfi. Provable advantage of curriculum learning on parity targets with mixed inputs. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024. [89] Petru Soviany, Radu Tudor Ionescu, Paolo Rota, and Nicu Sebe. Curriculum learning: A survey. International Journal of Computer Vision, pages 1–40, 2022. [90] Ilya Loshchilov and Frank Hutter. Fixing weight decay regularization in adam. CoRR, abs/1711.05101, 2017. [91] Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An imperative style, highperformance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019. [92] Andrej Karpathy. Nanogpt. https://github.com/karpathy/nanoGPT. Accessed: April 2024. [93] Myle Ott, Sergey Edunov, Alexei Baevski, Angela Fan, Sam Gross, Nathan Ng, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. fairseq: A fast, extensible toolkit for sequence modeling. In Waleed Ammar, Annie Louis, and Nasrin Mostafazadeh, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Demonstrations), 2019. [94] Muhammad Adnan, Akhil Arunkumar, Gaurav Jain, Prashant Nair, Ilya Soloveychik, and Purushotham Kamath. Keyformer: Kv cache reduction through key tokens selection for efficient generative inference. Proceedings of Machine Learning and Systems, 7, 2024. Authors: (1) Emmanuel Abbe, Apple and EPFL; (2) Samy Bengio, Apple; (3) Aryo Lotf, EPFL; (4) Colin Sandon, EPFL; (5) Omid Saremi, Apple. Authors: Authors: (1) Emmanuel Abbe, Apple and EPFL; (2) Samy Bengio, Apple; (3) Aryo Lotf, EPFL; (4) Colin Sandon, EPFL; (5) Omid Saremi, Apple. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY 4.0 license. available on arxiv available on arxiv
