The introduction of Aether-7B-5Attn, a 6.59B-parameter mixture-of-experts model whose 49 layers contain seven sequence-mixing mechanisms arranged as a Latin square, indicates that performance depends primarily on heterogeneous composition distributed across depth rather than on any particular permutation.
Abstract
Since GPT, most Transformers have repeated the same attention mechanism at every layer. Yet this design is largely a convention rather than a tested conclusion. When multiple sequence mixers are combined in one stack, improvements may arise from mechanism choice, placement, or both, making causal attribution difficult. We introduce Aether-7B-5Attn, a 6.59B-parameter mixture-of-experts model ($\approx$2.98B active) whose 49 layers contain seven sequence-mixing mechanisms arranged as a $7\times7$ Latin square. Because each mechanism appears exactly once in every row and column, the design guarantees balanced exposure across depth while eliminating placement confounds. To evaluate this principle, we build a parameter-matched proxy with four mechanisms arranged as a $4\times4$ Latin square over sixteen layers, matched to 700.9M parameters and trained with eight seeds per arm. The results reveal a clear dissociation. Rearranging a distributed heterogeneous stack into a balanced periodic cycle changes validation loss by only 0.16\%, indicating that exact placement has little effect. In contrast, clustering the same mechanisms into contiguous depth bands incurs a 0.59\% penalty, while replacing the heterogeneous stack with a homogeneous one incurs a 1.68\% penalty. These results indicate that performance depends primarily on heterogeneous composition distributed across depth rather than on any particular permutation. We confirm this finding at 2.16$\times$ larger scale (1.514B parameters), where the homogeneous-stack penalty increases to 2.63\% and removing the SSM-family mechanism produces a 3.20\% degradation. We further report per-mechanism cost profiles, English and Korean evaluations, and a causal-safety audit of all 49 layers. We release model weights, training recipes, training code, logs, and architecture source code.
This paper investigates developing real-world perception for active agents, proposes Gibson Environment for this purpose, and showcases a set of perceptual tasks learned therein.
F. Xia, Amir Zamir, Zhi-Yang He et al.· 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on...· 1,069 citations· ⚡112
The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.
Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al.· Information and Software Tec...· 394 citations· ⚡54
The possibility of inferring high-dimensional data inference in a model that consists of a prior and an auxiliary differentiable constraint given some additional information is considered, thereby allowing a range of potential applications in adapting models to new domains and tasks.
Alexandros Graikos, Esmeralda S. Whitammer, N. Jojic et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 316 citations· ⚡15
It is proved that any global minimizer of the trajectory balance objective can define a policy that samples exactly from the target distribution, and empirically demonstrate the benefits of the trajectories balance objective for GFlowNet convergence, diversity of generated samples, and robustness to long action sequenc...
Esmeralda S. Whitammer, Moksh Jain, Emmanuel Bengio et al.· Neural Information Processin...· 302 citations· ⚡60
An algorithm is proposed which leverages disentangled semantic factors to generate adversarial perturbation by altering controlled semantic attributes to fool the learner towards various "adversarial" targets.
Haonan Qiu, Chaowei Xiao, Lei Yang et al.· arXiv.org· 208 citations· ⚡17
This work proposes a HALO that directly maximizes the utility of generations instead of maximizing the log-likelihood of preferences, and suggests that the best loss depends on the inductive biases most appropriate for a given setting, an oft-overlooked consideration.
Assistant Professor Benjamin Lindquist studies how engineers deliberately injected randomness into early AI, giving rise to deep-learning models that sometimes hallucinate.