Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Detailed Answer
Quick Answer
Concise responses based on abstracts only
Detailed Answer
Well-researched responses based on abstracts and relevant paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 47 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 37 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 15 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 11 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 101 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 195 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 465 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4 37 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

Rethinking Query, Key, and Value Embedding in Vision Transformer under Tiny Model Constraints (2111.10017v1)

Published 19 Nov 2021 in cs.CV

Abstract: A vision transformer (ViT) is the dominant model in the computer vision field. Despite numerous studies that mainly focus on dealing with inductive bias and complexity, there remains the problem of finding better transformer networks. For example, conventional transformer-based models usually use a projection layer for each query (Q), key (K), and value (V) embedding before multi-head self-attention. Insufficient consideration of semantic $Q, K$, and $V$ embedding may lead to a performance drop. In this paper, we propose three types of structures for $Q$, $K$, and $V$ embedding. The first structure utilizes two layers with ReLU, which is a non-linear embedding for $Q, K$, and $V$. The second involves sharing one of the non-linear layers to share knowledge among $Q, K$, and $V$. The third proposed structure shares all non-linear layers with code parameters. The codes are trainable, and the values determine the embedding process to be performed among $Q$, $K$, and $V$. Hence, we demonstrate the superior image classification performance of the proposed approaches in experiments compared to several state-of-the-art approaches. The proposed method achieved $71.4\%$ with a few parameters (of $3.1M$) on the ImageNet-1k dataset compared to that required by the original transformer model of XCiT-N12 ($69.9\%$). Additionally, the method achieved $93.3\%$ with only $2.9M$ parameters in transfer learning on average for the CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, Stanford Cars datasets, and STL-10 datasets, which is better than the accuracy of $92.2\%$ obtained via the original XCiT-N12 model.

Citations (3)
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-Up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.