MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417248049 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.06949

Adaptive Computation Pruning for the Forgetting Transformer

2025· preprint· en· W4417248049 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Zhixuan Lin, Johan Obando-Ceron, Xu Owen He, Aaron Courville

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du Canada
KeywordsSoftmax functionForgettingComputationPruningFLOPSTransformerContext (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recently proposed Forgetting Transformer (FoX) incorporates a forget gate into softmax attention and has shown consistently better or on-par performance compared to the standard RoPE-based Transformer. Notably, many attention heads in FoX tend to forget quickly, causing their output at each timestep to rely primarily on local context. Based on this observation, we propose Adaptive Computation Pruning (ACP) for FoX, a method that dynamically prunes computations involving input-output dependencies that are strongly decayed by the forget gate. In particular, our method performs provably safe pruning via a dynamically set pruning threshold that guarantees the pruned attention weights are negligible. We apply ACP to language model pretraining with FoX and show it consistently reduces the number of FLOPs and memory accesses in softmax attention by around 70% across different model sizes and context lengths, resulting in a roughly 50% to 70% reduction in attention runtime (or a 2-3$\times$ speedup) and a roughly 10% to 40% increase in end-to-end training throughput. Furthermore, longer context lengths yield greater computational savings. All these speed improvements are achieved without any performance degradation. Our code is available at https://github.com/zhixuan-lin/forgetting-transformer.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207