Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · September 16, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Attention pays, at every layer and for every input, the cost of searching for whom to connect. We ask how far one can get with wiring that is fixed, sparse, and simply rotated from layer to layer. Treating the $n$ positions of a sequence as the vertices of a $\log_2 n$-dimensional hypercube and connecting each position, at layer $\ell$, to its neighbour along dimension $\ell \bmod \log_2 n$, information from every position reaches every other in $\log_2 n$ layers with $2n$ links per layer instead of $n^2$. On a synthetic task that is unsolvable unless all positions are reached, this rotation matches all-to-all wiring at $1/32$ of the links, while the same sparse pattern held fixed across layers fails; what matters is that every dimension is touched, not the order. On character-level language modelling of a public corpus (the first $12$M characters of enwik8), a hybrid that keeps two attention layers among sixteen sparse ones reaches $0.06$ bits-per-character lower held-out loss than a fully attentive model of the same width at the same step budget (three seeds each, no overlap), with $1/7$ of the links, $42\%$ fewer parameters, and $2.4\times$ less wall-clock time; the purely rotated schedule is level with the hybrid. The same ordering holds on a second corpus of mixed Japanese, English and code, where the gap widens to $0.16$. The usable learning-rate window is four to eight times wider than attention's on both. We also report what did not work - learned coordinates, and a "dynamics" variant whose apparent gains turned out to be an artefact of a saturated kernel - and the measurement discipline (frozen corpus, full-coverage evaluation, seed spread as the bar for ranking) that we found necessary to say anything at all at this scale.