← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.05355 · v2
Reading Why: Born-Measured Attention with Exact Word Evidence on Light and Qubits
首次提交 2026-11-04 02:52
版本更新 2026-11-05 00:21
雷达观测 2026-11-05 12:13
摘要
When a language model answers, we can usually only estimate why. We build a transformer in which every step is a Born measurement - attention $|\langle q|k\rangle|^4$ normalised over each row, a measured product in place of the feed-forward nonlinearity, and a Born readout. With its denominators held at their values for the input, each class probability is a polynomial in the word amplitudes, so its integrated-gradient evidence is computed by a finite quadrature with no quadrature error: the words' contributions sum to the class probability above its no-information share, to $10^{-11}$ or better. On e-SNLI natural language inference, with about 98k parameters outside the embedding, the model reaches $76.98 \pm 0.17$% test accuracy, level with a softmax transformer of the same size ($76.62 \pm 0.36$%). Deleting the word its evidence ranks first changes the answer in 45% of test pairs, out of the 53% any single deletion can change, against 32% for the softmax model explained the same way and 40% by its attention x gradient. Attention can look as much like the words annotators highlighted as the evidence does, yet accounts for the answer less well: deleting the word it ranks first changes the Born Transformer's answer in 32% of pairs. The same weights compile exactly to optoelectronic optics and to qubits, and a coherent attention layer becomes one circuit equal to the model (852 CNOTs on 23 qubits). On IBM's ibm_kingston, reading only the attention overlaps by Hadamard tests, the device gave the model's answers, also when a word was deleted. With calibration circuits as deep as the overlaps, each word's evidence with the device's attention row sums followed the exact evidence (correlations 0.997 and 0.932 on two pairs chosen in advance); where a pair's evidence is a small total of large opposite terms the earlier runs say it does not, and we say why.
作者备注：27 pages, 8 figures, 12 tables. Code, trained models and every IBM job record: https://github.com/stein-research/reading-why (doi:10.5281/zenodo.23938333)
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v2 · 2026-11-05 00:21 · 最新观测版本
Reading Why: Born-Measured Attention with Exact Word Evidence on Light and Qubits
When a language model answers, we can usually only estimate why. We build a transformer in which every step is a Born measurement - attention $|\langle q|k\rangle|^4$ normalised over each row, a measured product in place of the feed-forward nonlinearity, and a Born readout. With its denominators held at their values for the input, each class probability is a polynomial in the word amplitudes, so its integrated-gradient evidence is computed by a finite quadrature with no quadrature error: the words' contributions sum to the class probability above its no-information share, to $10^{-11}$ or better. On e-SNLI natural language inference, with about 98k parameters outside the embedding, the model reaches $76.98 \pm 0.17$% test accuracy, level with a softmax transformer of the same size ($76.62 \pm 0.36$%). Deleting the word its evidence ranks first changes the answer in 45% of test pairs, out of the 53% any single deletion can change, against 32% for the softmax model explained the same way and 40% by its attention x gradient. Attention can look as much like the words annotators highlighted as the evidence does, yet accounts for the answer less well: deleting the word it ranks first changes the Born Transformer's answer in 32% of pairs. The same weights compile exactly to optoelectronic optics and to qubits, and a coherent attention layer becomes one circuit equal to the model (852 CNOTs on 23 qubits). On IBM's ibm_kingston, reading only the attention overlaps by Hadamard tests, the device gave the model's answers, also when a word was deleted. With calibration circuits as deep as the overlaps, each word's evidence with the device's attention row sums followed the exact evidence (correlations 0.997 and 0.932 on two pairs chosen in advance); where a pair's evidence is a small total of large opposite terms the earlier runs say it does not, and we say why.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗v1 · 2026-11-04 02:52
Reading Why: Born-Measured Attention with Exact Word Evidence on Light and Qubits
When a language model answers, we can usually only estimate why. We build a transformer in which every step is a Born measurement - attention $|\langle q|k\rangle|^4$ normalised over each row, a measured product in place of the feed-forward nonlinearity, and a Born readout. With its denominators held at their values for the input, each class probability is a polynomial in the word amplitudes, so its integrated-gradient evidence is computed by a finite quadrature with no quadrature error: the words' contributions sum to the class probability above its no-information share, to $10^{-11}$ or better. On e-SNLI natural language inference, with about 98k parameters outside the embedding, the model reaches $76.98 \pm 0.17$% test accuracy, level with a softmax transformer of the same size ($76.62 \pm 0.36$%). Deleting the word its evidence ranks first changes the answer in 45% of test pairs, out of the 53% any single deletion can change, against 32% for the softmax model explained the same way and 40% by its attention x gradient. Attention can look more like the words annotators highlighted, yet accounts for the answer less well: deleting the word it ranks first changes the Born Transformer's answer in 32% of pairs. The same weights compile exactly to optoelectronic optics and to qubits, and a coherent attention layer becomes one circuit equal to the model (852 CNOTs on 23 qubits). On IBM's ibm_kingston, reading only the attention overlaps by Hadamard tests, the device gave the model's answers on two short test pairs and kept or changed them under deletion as the model does; the evidence itself did not yet survive the device, and we work out the shots and calibration that measuring it on hardware would need.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗