analiza aiqbench
This research dissects the internal mechanics of group attention in time-series models, revealing that learned query/key weighting mechanisms significantly degrade performance during in-context learning tasks compared to uniform pooling strategies. The findings suggest that simplifying attention heads by removing adaptive weighting can yield robust improvements across diverse sensor-network configurations without sacrificing multivariate forecasting accuracy.
Pooling Helps, Learned Weighting Hurts In-Context: Decomposing Group Attention
arXiv:2610.01831v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Group attention, introduced by the time series forecasting model Chronos-2, attends over the variates of a group at a fixed patch index and serves both multivariate (MV) and in-context learning (ICL) forecasting. Rather than evaluating this cross-variate attention design as a whole, we ask which part of the mechanism earns the benefit and probe its applicability to both MV and ICL regimes. By editing the attention matrix $\alpha$ at inference we separate the two pathways a head comprises: V/O, which projects a weighted summary of the group, and Q/K, which decides the weights. Uniform pooling (V/O without any Q/K weighting) is positive on 18 of our 20 sensor-network configurations, while the learned weighting (Q/K) splits by group type: its contribution is positive or negligible for MV, but materially degrades 8 of the 10 sensor-network ICL configurations, leaving 4 of them worse than univariate inference. By isolating the impact of different layers, we find that uniforming $\alpha$ in the first block alone improves every ICL configuration we test.
Abstract:Group attention, introduced by the time series forecasting model Chronos-2, attends over the variates of a group at a fixed patch index and serves both multivariate (MV) and in-context learning (ICL) forecasting. Rather than evaluating this cross-variate attention design as a whole, we ask which part of the mechanism earns the benefit and probe its applicability to both MV and ICL regimes. By editing the attention matrix $\alpha$ at inference we separate the two pathways a head comprises: V/O, which projects a weighted summary of the group, and Q/K, which decides the weights. Uniform pooling (V/O without any Q/K weighting) is positive on 18 of our 20 sensor-network configurations, while the learned weighting (Q/K) splits by group type: its contribution is positive or negligible for MV, but materially degrades 8 of the 10 sensor-network ICL configurations, leaving 4 of them worse than univariate inference. By isolating the impact of different layers, we find that uniforming $\alpha$ in the first block alone improves every ICL configuration we test.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.01831 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.01831v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.01831 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 261 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

When Partial Credit Opposes Completion
Snorkel AI Blog · 15 oct. 2026

Deconfusing Corrigibility
AI Alignment Forum · 17 oct. 2026

Expenditure Horizon: Measuring Optimization Ability, with an Application to NanoGPT
METR · 21 iul. 2026

Game Design Creativity evals
LessWrong · 12 oct. 2026