Papers
arxiv:2608.08888

Full-bandwidth transformer

Published on Aug 9
· Submitted by
Xi Wang
on Aug 14
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

Full-bandwidth transformers use latent feedback of top-layer hidden states to improve reasoning and efficiency without altering the core architecture.

Autoregressive transformers compute along two axes: horizontally across generated tokens, and vertically through model depth. Dense attention gives each token broad horizontal access to the past, but the vertical feedback channel between decoding steps remains narrow: only the sampled token returns to the bottom of the stack, while the top-layer hidden state is discarded. We introduce the full-bandwidth transformer, which widens this channel with latent feedback: at each decoding step, the previous top-layer hidden state is fused with the sampled token embedding through a gated linear unit and fed back as the next input. Latent feedback lets non-verbalized computation re-enter the stack with a renewed depth budget, while preserving the standard transformer architecture, KV cache, and language-modeling objective. To train full-bandwidth transformers without losing parallel teacher forcing, we use a scheduled multi-pass objective that introduces latent feedback late in pretraining and mixes a small fraction of deeper feedback passes for stability. We train 1B-parameter full-bandwidth transformers up to 400B tokens and find that latent feedback improves validation loss, 5-shot language-model evaluation, math and coding generation, and instruction-tuned performance. With negligible per-token decoding overhead, full-bandwidth transformers match or approach standard transformers trained with roughly 1.5times more tokens, and manage to produce shorter reasoning traces at equal or better accuracy.

Community

Was there a study of comparative scaling laws for this design? It seems that having to do multiple passes during training may require more training compute, and it is not clear to me that a normal transformer trained with the same compute wouldn't give a lower loss.

·
Paper author

Good question! We don't have scaling law ish results since we don't have that many data points due to compute constraint.

image

However, the interesting observation here is full-bandwidth transformer sometime performs better / on-par than models trained under more flops

image

e.g. here the 400B token model shows performance comparable to the 1T token model

A higher level argument is here the "data efficiency" / unlimited compute perspective: Since we only have a limited amount of high quality data, therefore we want to find a way to spend more flops under a given dataset to acquire better performance.

However, I do need to admit that at this moment we don't have very conclusive results on "how should you spend the flops"... my guess is that at one point spending flops on more token budgets results in diminishing gains (or make the model "over trained") and spending flops in other ways can continue providing gains

Paper author Paper submitter

A new pretrain paradigm: Put more compute during training time (via loop transformer / latent rnn type of algo), and obtain better capability at the same inference cost.

-- Dinghuai Zhang

Sign up or log in to comment

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2608.08888
Don't have the latest CLI?
curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.08888 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.08888 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2608.08888 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 1