this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)
Machine Learning
1 readers
1 users here now
Community Rules:
- Be nice. No offensive behavior, insults or attacks: we encourage a diverse community in which members feel safe and have a voice.
- Make your post clear and comprehensive: posts that lack insight or effort will be removed. (ex: questions which are easily googled)
- Beginner or career related questions go elsewhere. This community is focused in discussion of research and new projects that advance the state-of-the-art.
- Limit self-promotion. Comments and posts should be first and foremost about topics of interest to ML observers and practitioners. Limited self-promotion is tolerated, but the sub is not here as merely a source for free advertisement. Such posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If I'm understanding your question correctly, it probably doesn't make any differences computation wise. But if we have query dot key as one single input, then the attention layer would just have two inputs: 1.query dot key matrix; 2. value matrix. I think this would be a worse formulation thant the original paper altough they are the same computation wise. By allowing separate key and value matrices, the data flow is clearer. For example the Encoder-Decoder attention layer takes the result of Encoder block as key and value but the processed target sequence as value. This idea is very clear with the original attention layer formation.
It's the same mathematically but not computation wise, the tokens are projected to a smaller dimension. The complexity is 2Nd whereas it'd be N² if you'd fuse the weight matrices.
This.