MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

In-Memory Transformer Self-Attention Mechanism Using Passive Memristor Crossbar

2024· article· en· W4400230160 on OpenAlexaff
Jack Cai, Muhammad Ahsan Kaleem, Roman Genov, Mostafa Rahimi Azghadi, Amirali Amirsoleimani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrossbar switchMemristorTransformerComputer scienceMechanism (biology)Electrical engineeringPhysicsEngineeringVoltageTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transformers have emerged as the state-of-the-art architecture for natural language processing (NLP) and computer vision. However, they are inefficient in both conventional and in-memory computing architectures as doubling their sequence length quadruples their time and memory complexity due to their self-attention mechanism. Traditional methods optimize self-attention using memory-efficient algorithms or approximate methods, such as locality-sensitive hashing (LSH) attention that reduces time and memory complexity from O(L<sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</sup>) to O(L log L). In this work, we propose a hardware-level solution that further improves the computational efficiency of LSH attention by utilizing in-memory computing with semi-passive memristor arrays. We demonstrate that LSH can be performed with low-resolution, energy-efficient 0T1R arrays performing stochastic memristive vector-matrix multiplication (VMM). Using circuit-level simulation, we show our proposed method is feasible as a drop-in approximation in Large Language Models (LLMs) with no degradation in evaluation metrics. Our results set the foundation for future works on computing the entire transformer architecture in-memory.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Memory and Neural ComputingFrench-language works237,207