about
Formal Algorithms for Transformers (arxiv.org)
106 points by hexhowells on Jul 20, 2022 | hide | past | pdf | 13 comments on HN

In plain words: A mathematically precise guide to how transformer models — the design behind today's language models — are built, trained, and used, covering their key parts and best-known versions. It gives exact definitions and equations instead of new results or experiments.

Abstract

This document aims to be a self-contained, mathematically precise overview of transformer architectures and algorithms (*not* results). It covers what transformers are, how they are trained, what they are used for, their key architectural components, and a preview of the most prominent models. The reader is assumed to be familiar with basic ML terminology and simpler neural network architectures such as MLPs.

Mary Phuong, Marcus Hutter
arXiv:2207.09238 · cs.LG, cs.AI, cs.CL, cs.NE · submitted Jul 19, 2022
abstract · pdf · html · 16 pages, 15 algorithms

add comment on HN

I find the distinction introduced in this paper into encoder-decoder Transformers, encoder-only Transformers and decoder-only Transformers very useful for my informal understanding of the different architectures. Thank you for this clear clarification.
I'm curious about this comment and it being the top comment. Is this something people don't know? Everything in this paper was introduced in Attention Is All You Need[0]. They introduced Dot Product Attention, which is what everyone just refers to now as Attention, and they talk about the decoder and encoder framework. The encoder is just self attention `softmax(<q(x),k(x)>)v(x)` and decoder includes joint attention `softmax(<q(x),k(x)>)v(y)`

I have a lot of complaints about this paper because it only covers topics addressed in the main attention paper (Vaswani) and I can't see how it accomplishes anything but pulling citations away from grad students who did survey papers on Attention, which are more precise and have more coverage of the field. As a quick search, here's a survey paper from last year that has more in depth discussion and more mathematical precision[1].

Maybe because this is an area of research adjacent to my active area, but I'm a little confused at the attention (pun intended) it is getting. Seems just like Deep Mind's name is the major motivation.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.04554

I like how this seems to actually be self-contained. They even have a list of notations in the end.
This is a fantastic resource. It's the missing piece of many machine learning articles.
Zero diagrams, but maybe they wouldn’t be helpful to clarify the concept? Guess it depends on the types of learners, I’m not sure.
paper explicitly rejects diagrams as unhelpful

> Some 100+ page papers contain only a few lines of prose informally describing the model [RBC+21]. At best there are some high-level diagrams

> only a few lines of prose informally describing the model

This is ironic considering they use more words to describe chunking (splitting along a dimension, x,y = a[0,:,:,:], a[1,:,:,:]) than multi-heads.

I can't tell who this paper is aimed at. It isn't formal. It isn't mathematical. It isn't a good description and doesn't have good coverage. I can only assume it is for citations.
I was assuming electrical transformers.
Or the cartoon/toy franchise
familiar with basic ML terminology might be an understatement
If you're starting from scratch scratch, these might be of more use to you. Second focuses on vision transformers, but all the concepts still apply.

https://jalammar.github.io/illustrated-transformer/

https://medium.com/pytorch/training-compact-transformers-fro...

This field moves very quickly. I don't think anyone can be expected to keep up who don't make it a weekly study subject or are actively employed in it.