Skip to content
aiqbench takeMachine Learning

aiqbench analysis

This paper introduces "belief geometry," a unified theoretical framework that analytically compares the representational strengths of Transformers and state-space models (SSMs) in-context learning. The analysis reveals distinct architectural trade-offs, showing SSMs excel at memory maintenance while softmax attention retains an exponential advantage for content addressing tasks. These findings provide critical insights for researchers designing next-generation hybrid architectures or selecting optimal backbone models for specific sequential problems.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

A Comparative Analysis of Attention versus State-Space Models for In-Context Learning

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.32341v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Transformers and state-space models (SSMs) are two prominent sequential learning architectures, yet their comparison remains largely empirical and existing theoretical analyses are typically task-specific or architecturally restricted. In this paper, we develop belief geometry, a unified analytical framework for comparing the representational capabilities of broad classes of attention and SSMs. Starting from a generalized formulation of in-context linear regression and using cumulative Bayes regret as our measure, we abstract three capabilities required by many sequential learning problems in our belief geometry: evidence assembly, belief maintenance, and addressing. We then study three cases of our formulation that isolate these capabilities and yield sharp architectural lessons: For belief maintenance, SSMs attain the optimal regret over stationary aggregation kernels; for positional assembly, SSMs have a memory advantage; and for content addressing, softmax attention has an exponential width advantage over sigmoid-selective SSMs. Experiments with LLaMA-type Transformers and Mamba-2 show that these architectural insights extend beyond our analytically tractable classes and linear-regression testbed.

Abstract:Transformers and state-space models (SSMs) are two prominent sequential learning architectures, yet their comparison remains largely empirical and existing theoretical analyses are typically task-specific or architecturally restricted. In this paper, we develop belief geometry, a unified analytical framework for comparing the representational capabilities of broad classes of attention and SSMs. Starting from a generalized formulation of in-context linear regression and using cumulative Bayes regret as our measure, we abstract three capabilities required by many sequential learning problems in our belief geometry: evidence assembly, belief maintenance, and addressing. We then study three cases of our formulation that isolate these capabilities and yield sharp architectural lessons: For belief maintenance, SSMs attain the optimal regret over stationary aggregation kernels; for positional assembly, SSMs have a memory advantage; and for content addressing, softmax attention has an exponential width advantage over sigmoid-selective SSMs. Experiments with LLaMA-type Transformers and Mamba-2 show that these architectural insights extend beyond our analytically tractable classes and linear-regression testbed.

Machine Learning (cs.LG)

arXiv:2609.32341 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2609.32341v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.32341 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 252 words

Related coverage